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

[woodenhead]

14 minutes ago, Anglian said:

By the time a couple of crew figures have been added I think the interior will be pretty crowded.
 

You're probably right, I was just referring to the interior because one comparison made between Hornby's offering and Dapol's was the more detailed cab interior.

 

It wouldn't matter to me which is the most accurate, I don't look inside the cabs of my locos.

[The Stationmaster]

55 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

Oh, so does that mean that the cab layout was somewhat simpler in those locos?

 

The cab details would have changed massively over the years - for example the early engines didn't have any sort of continuous brake system (and they had wooden brake blocks), then they they gained a Westinghouse brake but it was a lot later before any gained a vacuum brake for the train so already there is some cab variety just from the brake fit in the period a model is supposed to represent.  I'd also be very surprised if they had twin gauge glasses until quite well on in their lives and I wouldn't be surprised if the early engines didn't have a gauge glass at all but had try cocks instead.  Similarly as the brakes systems appeared/changed/increased (on dual fitted engines) so would the number of gauges have increased.

 

Thus if you are going to get the cab detail right - or even claim that it is right - you need to carefully check the condition of the engine that is being modelled in the period in which the model is set.  For example the K&ESR used the vacuum brake so any Westinghouse related kit and gauges(s) would have not been present in the cab.  All well and good to say a particular cab 'has more detail' but if it's superfluous or incorrect detail than it's not really much different from having too little detail compared with what it should portray.

 

Probably far simpler to have the motor magnet protruding into the cab to stop these sort of discussions and give a reason for unified moaning about complete lack of cab detail   Things were so much simpler with Hornby Dublo

[Edwardian]

This description of the original cab layout (from RCTS) may be of some interest here:

 

The cab was particularly well laid out, with the driver being able to operate the regulator, blower, brake valve, deflector, whistle and water cock without moving, while half-a-pace back gave him his stance for the reversing lever.  Room for swinging the shovel was restricted, but the class was so light on fuel that firing was a simple task, except when running at speed, then the swaying and vibration made it difficult to keep upright without support. 

 

Initially brakes could be applied by hand or steam, but the crews did not find the steam brake reliable.   The last two batches were the first to have Westinghouse air-brakes fitted from new (this would have included Boxhill, incidentally), the rest of the class was retro-fitted with the air-brakes in place of the steam between 1879 and 1882.

 

 

[G-BOAF]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

All well and good to say a particular cab 'has more detail' but if it's superfluous or incorrect detail than it's not really much different from having too little detail compared with what it should portray.

 

A lesson for those Youtubers who drool over cabs packed with fine detail, some of which is incorrect (which they fail to critique).

Then again, I would say that for semi-hidden detail like cabs, the compromise is acceptable, albeit maybe for the Terrier have two cab interiors (one early, one late?) and fit the closest one.

I'd certainly say that external shape and details is much more important than the cab detail, which can be modified by the modeller without the disruption or risk of damage/mismatched finish that external detail would risk.

 

[Jenny Emily]

Rails were kind enough to allow me to review their Terrier against a Hornby one: 

 

 

[Anglian]

Thanks for this Jenny, I'm now really sold on the Rails version and can't wait to see final version.

[truffy]

8 hours ago, Jenny Emily said:

Rails were kind enough to allow me to review their Terrier against a Hornby one: 

 

Interesting that they would do that if theirs was only a decorated EP sample that is subject to change. What would be the point?

 

Disclosure: I haven't watched the video!

Edited March 27, 2019 by truffy

[Anglian]

If you watch the video JE makes it very clear that this is a sample and it's worth watching because you'll get a good impression of what's already been achieved. I imagine Rails are confident of just how good the final model will be so this video serves as an appetiser.

 

Seeing the model on video, along with Oliver confirming changes will be made, has convinced me that the Rails model will be worth the extra cost above the Hornby one.

[Edwardian]

That was a great video, and gave a better look at both models than I'd had before.

 

It is also interesting that the quality I think of as "refinement" (or "finesse", as Jenny says) shines through on the Rails/Dapol model. 

 

Jenny did not comment on the models from the point of view of accuracy.  Indeed, it should be pointed out that Hornby is quite correct in omitting the condensing pipes from Rolvenden.  Jenny was, presumably, unaware of the 3 main accuracy issues for the Hornby model (2 generic, the non-recessed tank tops and the buffers) and 1 particular (the wrong cab rear), but in a way, that made the review even more persuasive; even without accuracy concerns in the equation, the Rails model was found to be more convincing. 

 

Jenny made very good points, particularly about the cab interior and glazing, the wheel nuts and the inside motion. 

 

However, it's worth re-watching this video and looking out for the following, which can be seen very clearly, thanks to Jenny's filming:

 

- When Jenny makes the point about the inside motion, compare the boiler barrels; Rails/Dapol has a single piece, whereas the join is obvious on the Hornby model.

 

- In the same shot, look at the edge of the smoke-box wing plates.  This is too thick and overscale on the Hornby model.  Look how much thinner the Rails one is.

 

- Again, in these shots, particularly on the split screen sequence, look at the splasher-sandbox size and shape (particular the curve up from the splasher at the rear of the sandbox).  The two models are noticeably different here, with Rails/Dapol looking far closer to the scale size and correct shape. 

 

- On the front views, note the buffer beams.  One of the niggles with the Dapol 7mm Terrier was the inclusion of a raised plate around the coupling hook.  This was fine for the A1Xs, but should not have been seen on the early condition A1s.  There has been quite a lot of evidence that Dapol have a much more extensive tooling suite for the 4mm model.  This is an example; the plate is correctly omitted from Bodiam.  But Lo! Hornby has mistakenly included such a plate on Rolvenden.

 

- While we are on the front, smoke-box door hinge straps are much thicker and longer than Dapol's.  Again, Dapol's are far closer to the prototype. 

 

I feel that many of the points I've been banging on about, both pros and cons for both models, can be clearly seen thanks to this video, and I feel it significant that you don't have to be a Terrier Nerd to appreciate the difference in quality here.  For an EP to outshine a rival production model in this way is, I feel, all the more impressive.

 

Well done Jenny and well done Rails/Dapol.  

[GeoffBird]

Looking at the Video there was one thing I noticed that hasn't been mentioned before I think.  Namely that the Hornby version has the washout plugs on the top of the firebox which the Rails/Dapol one doesn't (yet?).  I assume that the Hornby ones are correct.

[JSpencer]

The good thing is that you mix the two on the same layout and they won't look odd togethor. You cannot mix the old model with either of the new.

[Edwardian]

12 minutes ago, GeoffBird said:

Looking at the Video there was one thing I noticed that hasn't been mentioned before I think.  Namely that the Hornby version has the washout plugs on the top of the firebox which the Rails/Dapol one doesn't (yet?).  I assume that the Hornby ones are correct.

 

Are you sure they should be there?

 

 

Apologies, this is a re-posting of Ian McCormac's picture

[Roy Langridge]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

That was a great video, and gave a better look at both models than I'd had before.

 

It is also interesting that the quality I think of as "refinement" (or "finesse", as Jenny says) shines through on the Rails/Dapol model. 

 

Jenny did not comment on the models from the point of view of accuracy.  Indeed, it should be pointed out that Hornby is quite correct in omitting the condensing pipes from Rolvenden.  Jenny was, presumably, unaware of the 3 main accuracy issues for the Hornby model (2 generic, the non-recessed tank tops and the buffers) and 1 particular (the wrong cab rear), but in a way, that made the review even more persuasive; even without accuracy concerns in the equation, the Rails model was found to be more convincing. 

 

Jenny made very good points, particularly about the cab interior and glazing, the wheel nuts and the inside motion. 

 

However, it's worth re-watching this video and looking out for the following, which can be seen very clearly, thanks to Jenny's filming:

 

- When Jenny makes the point about the inside motion, compare the boiler barrels; Rails/Dapol has a single piece, whereas the join is obvious on the Hornby model.

 

- In the same shot, look at the edge of the smoke-box wing plates.  This is too thick and overscale on the Hornby model.  Look how much thinner the Rails one is.

 

- Again, in these shots, particularly on the split screen sequence, look at the splasher-sandbox size and shape (particular the curve up from the splasher at the rear of the sandbox).  The two models are noticeably different here, with Rails/Dapol looking far closer to the scale size and correct shape. 

 

- On the front views, note the buffer beams.  One of the niggles with the Dapol 7mm Terrier was the inclusion of a raised plate around the coupling hook.  This was fine for the A1Xs, but should not have been seen on the early condition A1s.  There has been quite a lot of evidence that Dapol have a much more extensive tooling suite for the 4mm model.  This is an example; the plate is correctly omitted from Bodiam.  But Lo! Hornby has mistakenly included such a plate on Rolvenden.

 

- While we are on the front, smoke-box door hinge straps are much thicker and longer than Dapol's.  Again, Dapol's are far closer to the prototype. 

 

I feel that many of the points I've been banging on about, both pros and cons for both models, can be clearly seen thanks to this video, and I feel it significant that you don't have to be a Terrier Nerd to appreciate the difference in quality here.  For an EP to outshine a rival production model in this way is, I feel, all the more impressive.

 

Well done Jenny and well done Rails/Dapol.  

 

But the video does also show those areas where the Hornby model is better such as the brake rigging being much finer and closer to true scale and cab steps that probably aren't out of gauge.

 

That said, I am looking forward to my pre-ordered Rails Terrier.

Roy

[mikesndbs]

Interesting to see the video.

 

I'd say the handbrake needs attention, its pushed over as seen.

Good news on the chimney, I wonder if we will be getting the correct curved coupling rods.

All in all, its making me think I may need to order more than one of the Rails one

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, mikesndbs said:

 

 

I'd say the handbrake needs attention, its pushed over as seen.

 

 

The brake stand is supposed to be set at an angle. 

 

 

And, if you can tear your eyes away from those hex nuts, you'll see that Hornby (on the production model) has assembled the coupling rods the wrong way round. The Rails/Dapol sample shows them the correct way round.

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Edwardian

[bigherb]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

Are you sure they should be there?

 

 

Apologies, this is a re-posting of Ian McCormac's picture

Well, you have posted pictures with them there.

[Edwardian]

34 minutes ago, bigherb said:

Well, you have posted pictures with them there.

 

Explain, please?

 

EDIT: No?

 

I think you must be mistaken.  We should try to stick to the facts, please.

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Edwardian

[mikesndbs]

Came across this photo of Rolvenden in 1901 and thought others may be interested, no photographer attribute sadly.

 

 

[G-BOAF]

3 hours ago, GeoffBird said:

Looking at the Video there was one thing I noticed that hasn't been mentioned before I think.  Namely that the Hornby version has the washout plugs on the top of the firebox which the Rails/Dapol one doesn't (yet?).  I assume that the Hornby ones are correct.

Maybe differences between the A1 and A1x boiler, or indeed different individual boilers?

As the pic above of Boxhill shows, there are no plugs.

 

Top down pictures of Terriers seem hard to find however.

[JSpencer]

53 minutes ago, mikesndbs said:

Came across this photo of Rolvenden in 1901 and thought others may be interested, no photographer attribute sadly.

 

 

 

Nice pick but it cannot be earlier than 1905 because 1/ she was not transferred to the KESR before then and 2/ the KESR was called Rother Valley Railway in 1901 and was renamed no earlier than 1904.

 

Note: there are no protection bars across the windows in this pick yet Hornby's model has been fitted with them (while one of their BR A1Xs is without when it should have them). 

[Wickham Green]

4 hours ago, GeoffBird said:

Looking at the Video there was one thing I noticed that hasn't been mentioned before I think.  Namely that the Hornby version has the washout plugs on the top of the firebox which the Rails/Dapol one doesn't (yet?).  I assume that the Hornby ones are correct.

MANY classes of locos acquired visible washout plugs as the years went by - so this will be a matter for exact prototype at exact date ................ so working back through sixteen pages of this thread ( and the parallel Hornby thread too ) might find the evidence for each loco portrayed.

[Edwardian]

Indeed.  I would not discount the possibility that these were added later in life.  Frankly, I don't know.

 

But, I would be fairly confident that they are not a feature of early condition A1s, and, so, therefore, that they are incorrect for Rolvenden (and the other A1s announced).  Remember, Hornby seems to have come to market with but a single centre section (tanks/boiler) because the A1Xs lack the additional tank cladding nuts, so it may be that this part of the Hornby model is something of a hybrid.

[truffy]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

something of a hybrid.

 

Is that a diplomatic way of saying ‘mongrel’?

[JSpencer]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Indeed.  I would not discount the possibility that these were added later in life.  Frankly, I don't know.

 

But, I would be fairly confident that they are not a feature of early condition A1s, and, so, therefore, that they are incorrect for Rolvenden (and the other A1s announced).  Remember, Hornby seems to have come to market with but a single centre section (tanks/boiler) because the A1Xs lack the additional tank cladding nuts, so it may be that this part of the Hornby model is something of a hybrid.

 

I guess the Hornby tooling suite must be something like:

side tanks one slide or default mould (8 nuts for all)

mid boiler section, two slides, A1 and A1X

cab/bunker, two slides, small tool box or IOW.

 

The whole thing makes one part in those variations.

 

I've just ordered 3 rails versions. 

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

 

I guess the Hornby tooling suite must be something like:

side tanks one slide or default mould (8 nuts for all)

mid boiler section, two slides, A1 and A1X

cab/bunker, two slides, small tool box or IOW.

 

The whole thing makes one part in those variations.

 

I've just ordered 3 rails versions. 

 

Yes, of course, for different A1 A1X dome positions.