Jump to content
MGR Hooper!

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

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BlueLightning said:

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

 

Capture.PNG.ea99e8eccb25ac2c25a1912c12cb5568.PNG

Hello Gary

 

Yes, a shame, it is the location of the bunker top lamp iron on the Dapol model that prevents a correct representation of the bunker rails, maybe a tooling / cost compromise? Hornby have designed their bunker top lamp iron similar to the prototype and is "cranked out" where bunker rails are fitted.

 

Kind regards

 

Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

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. 

Agree, it will be interesting to see if there is a detailing / separate parts pack. My first model hasn't arrived yet and will probably take weeks or months as I'm in Oz and overseas mail is almost non-exsistent at the moment. Anyway, all is not lost, still a very good model by the looks of it.

 

Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

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.

 

Hello, 

 

 Fair dos, I will wait a bit longer on the D, of course its still very early on its development road. 

 

Of course there will be good feedback and bad... Especially if your going to make bold claims you have to back them up... 

I think we can all see its been developed from a 7mm version but as mentioned before... But as I stated how has the br version changed so much... From being reasonably correct to what rails have in OO.. 

 

Just surprised me. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

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:

image.png.560f4185913d4d03cc6028db93236276.pngimage.png.0ba905b2efd25690b3f8bd81aceada2c.png

 

32661 - BR in service condition and Dapol model:

image.png.1fba59dfb2f8aca2a5179f259491f9e9.pngimage.png.8224d49e9009b894a558bb20bec98f16.png

 

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

image.png.0fcc12476731d5fa0e13fa2f36fb3f71.png

 

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.

 

 

 

Yes, I should think that re-arranging pipes to suit would be within what the modeller who is concerned to do so can do.

 

I think we have to accept the need for reasonable compromise.  The tooling suite is reasonably extensive, but there have to be limits, otherwise it would end up a £300 model! One result of this here might be that extraneous hole in the buffer beam.  These indignities have to be borne if a model is to pay its way. For instance, on the Hornby ones I have seen, you have extraneous holes in the cab front sheet, where the same tool has been used for versions that lacked vac exhaust pipes etc.  It's just a question of where the manufacturer decides to make the necessary compromises.  The Terrier is a rare instance of duplication that illustrates how different manufacturers might arrive at different decisions. 

 

Another compromise that both manufacturers have apparently made is in the cab. Dapol's seems to favour early service locos, whereas Hornby's is focussed on late service examples.  That might suit those looking for evidence of a vac ejector, but comes at a cost to those wanting an A1, in which case the Hornby cab is festooned with all sorts of anachronistic fittings. Six of one ...

 

Though I come at this from more of an A1 than A1X perspective, my overall impression is that Rails/Dapol achieve greater accuracy for two reasons. First , because the Dapol tooling suite was designed to be more extensive.  This is an area that I had some personal knowledge of; identifying variations and what additions to the tooling suite (beyond the original 7mm design) might, subject to commercial viability, be added. In that, I was rather like the Government's scientific advisors (!), presenting the knowledge for others to  make the decisions.  That is not a process I can discuss beyond saying I was pleasantly surprised at how many variants were accepted. The second issue is that sadly Hornby seems to have made more mistakes along the way.  At the end of the day, things like the tank tops, the too few tank cladding bolts on the A1X tank and the anachronistic wash out plugs on the rival model would bother me (though I accept they won't bother others) and they are things I could not cure without surgery that would compromise the livery.  In that regard, one can seek out minor imperfections on the Dapol model until the cows come home, yet it will remain fundamentally the more sound interpretation of the prototype, and, I confess some impatience with one or two voices condemning the better for not being the perfect.  

 

Anyhow, that's some of how I get to a conclusion essentially similar to yours, with which I do not take issue at all:

 

"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."

 

 

  

  • Like 7
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My review of the Terrier:

 

 

Edited by Jenny Emily
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, GWRtrainman said:

 

Unlike anything you've ever posted where you're not involved in the design and research of course. This really is the Pot calling the Kettle black!

 

You've been ruthless about any model, person or company who do not create a model your standards ignoring any reality of economics or their perception of what the market wants. Indeed you have stated you would be quite happy if your fault finding posts cause a company to go bust.

 

I think you're being at best being 'uneven' on your postings and should withdraw politely unless you clearly state your involvement each time.

 

Not at all. Typical misleading fan-boy post by you there, with a number of untruths.

 

A few  points for you, then.  If you're still angry after reading them, please go and be angry somewhere else, I have a busy morning;

 

  • I try always to be objective and fact-based.  Occasionally I get it wrong (!). If more points are made about a certain model, that is because there are more points to make!  You say some silly things in your post like "ruthless" and suggest these are "my" standards.  I simply report on the information I have bothered to research, which may show the extent to which a model may measure up to the prototype. So, it's objective and researched based, not "ruthless", and the standard of measure is the prototype, not "my standards". If you are not interested in information regarding a given prototype, don't trouble yourself to read what I say, but, then, don't say silly things about it.
  • My comments tend to lack the anger or condemnation you imply. It is people like you that put the emotion and hyperbole into topics like this.  
  • That said, I have modified my expectations of what it is reasonable for a RTR manufacturer to achieve since I have been privileged to have an insight into the process. I am not going to apologise for that.  
  • I would not wish anyone to go bust.  IIRC, the closest I may have come to that is that I do not regret the passing of DJ Models.  And I don't, so far as the models produced are concerned.  Though I may have sympathy on a personal level even with that outcome.
  • I post my own views, and am responsible for them. I have not pretended the Rails-Dapol Terrier is perfect, sensibly no product is, but it is, in my view, demonstrably the stronger model. If you disagree, however informed or uninformed that view may be, that is a matter for you, but I don't think it requires you to call my integrity into question, so back in your box, please.
  • I have had to operate under certain restrictions and, for what it is worth, I was relived when I was able to acknowledge an "interest".  That said, I have not said anything about any product or its rival that I did not believe to be correct or fair. That is because what I have said is based on the research I have done, rather than mere opinion, which is all you offer.
  • Like 4
  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Edwardian

James,

 

Yes I am addressing this one direct to you, after all you have a certain reputation here, and have directly "outed" your position on the inside.

 

Now before I start this, I want to remind you I do consider us friends, and I do value our friendship much more than I value a model train, but I do feel my point has been ignored, and deserves a response.

 

Firstly I just want to say that when I first found out you were involved I became very, very excited for this project. With the honest belief that no glaring issues would get through, and any that did would be understandable compromises, such as the buffer beam pipework, I believe you have explained this well, although personally I would have liked to see the correct shaped pipes, even if they were on the wrong side of the coupling for neatness purposes. I also agree the cab is a compromise that makes sense on both sides

 

I also see you once again bringing up the tank tops issue on the Hornby model, something which Hornby have since corrected, I feel this rather makes it a moot point, and shows Hornby are willing to listen to, and address feedback.

 

Now those coal rails I mentioned before? a much more glaring error than the tank tops. I notice you totally ignore my comment in your reply about errors, and only address the ones which are nice and easy to cover with "it would cost too much" I don't think you can really say that getting the lamp iron correct would cause the model to cost £300, since Hornby got it right. It seems a shame that the "reasonably extensive" tooling suite got this wrong on every variant, and that in my personal opinion it causes an error much bigger than any of the errors on the Hornby model. I look at the thumbnail of Jenny's video above, I can't really tell there is an indent in the tank top, I can tell the coal rails look ridiculous, and I think everyone here knows if you weren't on the inside you would be the loudest voice calling this error out.

 

and coming from an A1 rather than A1x viewpoint I have to say this issue for me causes the opposite conclusion to yours. The Hornby model captures the feel of the class better than this one, and costs less. Even if so far the only A1's with coal rails are the KESR ones, I assume at some point an LBSC liveried one will appear, they did get them pre-grouping after all.

 

Gary

 

PS. Would it be wrong to point out that even the 1980's tooling got the coal rails in the right place?

  • Like 4
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jenny Emily said:

My review of the Terrier:

 

 

Thanks Jenny and thanks for confirming the inclusion of vac pipes. You may have noticed this was a concern (obsession) of mine in recent posts!! 
 

Andy.

Share this post


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

Thanks Jenny and thanks for confirming the inclusion of vac pipes. You may have noticed this was a concern (obsession) of mine in recent posts!! 
 

Andy.

One thing to note with that, I'm not too sure that those are Vaccum pipes. I think they are either steam heat or a low mounted air pipes.

 

All terriers I've seen have them mounted above the buffer beam like the prefitted high mount air pipe, the only exception is Fenchurch in current mock A1 condition where its vac pipe is inline with the buffer beam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Gents  ( I dont include ladies as they are sensible ) we  talking and moaning about a plastic toy .Its not like they are important like  Pez dispensers so get a grip.

Edited by friscopete
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

One thing to note with that, I'm not too sure that those are Vaccum pipes. I think they are either steam heat or a low mounted air pipes.

 

All terriers I've seen have them mounted above the buffer beam like the prefitted high mount air pipe, the only exception is Fenchurch in current mock A1 condition where its vac pipe is inline with the buffer beam. 

Thanks, I was also unsure whether they were actually vac pipes so took Jenny’s word for it as it was hard to see them in the video. At the end of the day vac pipes can be fitted to the dual braked locos without having to remove the pre-fitted air brake pipes. My main concern was air pipes fitted to vacuum only locos and the removal of them (if you chose to). It may have been better to have all pipes optional extras. 
 

I’ve made at least four post (or more) on this subject and feel I’ve said enough. It looks the bunker rails are becoming a burning issue however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

While I sympathise with what you say:

 

57 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

I also see you once again bringing up the tank tops issue on the Hornby model, something which Hornby have since corrected, I feel this rather makes it a moot point, and shows Hornby are willing to listen to, and address feedback.

 

That's only relevant if you want any Terrier, or one specifically from later batches.

If you're interested in one of the earlier specific models (as would've suited me), it doesn't really help. It's still a case of the lesser of two imperfections. I can live with it.

Edited by truffy
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, truffy said:

That's only relevant if you want any Terrier, or one specifically from later batches.

If you're interested in one of the earlier specific models (as would've suited me), it doesn't really help. It's still a case of the lesser of two imperfections. I can live with it.

 

I agree, it should have been addressed before initial release, I assume it wasn't for cost reasons, but I don't have any inside information to base that on. I included it purely as a counter to it being used as an argument while my point was being ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

@Edwardian

James,

 

Yes I am addressing this one direct to you, after all you have a certain reputation here, and have directly "outed" your position on the inside.

 

Now before I start this, I want to remind you I do consider us friends, and I do value our friendship much more than I value a model train, but I do feel my point has been ignored, and deserves a response.

 

Firstly I just want to say that when I first found out you were involved I became very, very excited for this project. With the honest belief that no glaring issues would get through, and any that did would be understandable compromises, such as the buffer beam pipework, I believe you have explained this well, although personally I would have liked to see the correct shaped pipes, even if they were on the wrong side of the coupling for neatness purposes. I also agree the cab is a compromise that makes sense on both sides

 

I also see you once again bringing up the tank tops issue on the Hornby model, something which Hornby have since corrected, I feel this rather makes it a moot point, and shows Hornby are willing to listen to, and address feedback.

 

Now those coal rails I mentioned before? a much more glaring error than the tank tops. I notice you totally ignore my comment in your reply about errors, and only address the ones which are nice and easy to cover with "it would cost too much" I don't think you can really say that getting the lamp iron correct would cause the model to cost £300, since Hornby got it right. It seems a shame that the "reasonably extensive" tooling suite got this wrong on every variant, and that in my personal opinion it causes an error much bigger than any of the errors on the Hornby model. I look at the thumbnail of Jenny's video above, I can't really tell there is an indent in the tank top, I can tell the coal rails look ridiculous, and I think everyone here knows if you weren't on the inside you would be the loudest voice calling this error out.

 

and coming from an A1 rather than A1x viewpoint I have to say this issue for me causes the opposite conclusion to yours. The Hornby model captures the feel of the class better than this one, and costs less. Even if so far the only A1's with coal rails are the KESR ones, I assume at some point an LBSC liveried one will appear, they did get them pre-grouping after all.

 

Gary

 

PS. Would it be wrong to point out that even the 1980's tooling got the coal rails in the right place?

 

OK Gary, since it's you (I do have a busy morning!).  First, I confess that I forgot that there has been some modification to the Hornby tank tops; the only ones I've physically seen and handled were the initial batch.  That informed my personal judgment because the 3 initial Hornby A1 identities were all ones that I was interested, so I was genuinely disappointed. Now you mention it, I recall that someone had written to me about this.  I think it may have been the IOW one and I did  see a picture at one point.  As best I can recall it was not spot on but obviously better than before.  It would be useful to know to which models this correction has been applied, though this is not the place for that.  Thank you for pointing it out, though, because it is an important caveat.

 

Second, bunkergate.  There are some aspects of the model and prototype with which I am more familiar than others.  You will probably recall that the weight of my comments has always been on the A1s, as the pre-Grouping variants, and often I do not comment on points that are not that familiar to me. Mine was not the only pair of eyes on the project and matters such as these are primarily down to designer. The position of the bunker rails was not an issue I happened to discuss with him. 

 

Thus, I cannot say what design considerations applied to the bunker, so am reluctant to speculate.  However, since you ask, if I had to guess I would suggest it likely that it too probably was as a result of a necessary compromise. Again, I think this may show different approaches by the different manufacturers.  It looks to me that Hornby has chosen to model a cranked lamp iron attached to the back of the bunker. Now, to my eye that looks somewhat overscale and does not capture the look of the A1Xs especially well, or resemble the picture you posted, though I appreciate you favour it.  Be that as it may, it is also applied to Hornby's A1s, for which it is quite wrong. I'd noted it recently on Hornby's SE&CR 751. On the A1, the lamp iron is mounted inside the bunker lip. That Is how the Rails/Dapol one does it.  It seems to me, then, that it would be difficult to avoid tooling for two different bunkers in this situation. So, again, we seem to have Hornby electing to represent one major variant (in this case the A1X) and Dapol's design favouring the other (A1).   

 

Choices have to be made as to how best to represent a very diverse class with a rational and commercially viable tooling suite.  That leads to different outcomes from those you would have if you were looking less broadly and focussing on one corner of the subject. Sometimes the individual modeller's interest benefits from the decisions, sometimes not.

 

At least with this decision, I'd offer this consolation; it is probably easier for the A1X owner to clip off the Rails lamp iron and fabricate new coal rails than it would be to carve Hornby's lamp iron off the back of the A1 bunker and then make good on a 'livery areas'. 

 

Now, I cannot keep up with this thread and don't have the time at the moment, so, Gary, that will have to do!

 

  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the response James, it is very much appreciated!

 

I agree with your point of Hornby's rear lamp iron being far from perfect, but it is Hornby, what do we expect?

 

I think the term "Pedigree" that kept coming out of Rails made me expect better. The biggest problem with the coal rails is that they appear pre-A1x rebuild. 662 had them by May 1909, as shown in a picture of her repaint into Umber, and 681 had them while it was still a 2-4-0, as 2 examples, both are locos I have models of as so need coal rails, a modification that I personally feel is beyond my ability to get right.

 

I personally am not a fan of either models compromises, as I'm sure you can understand, but I also understand some do need to be made. If my terriers get replaced the new ones will all come from the same source, and if it were not for this issue, I would be very happy to say that they would definitely come from Rails, because I do feel that in other areas they have done a better job, but those coal rails stick out to me a lot more than any of the errors on the Hornby model. As it stands I do not want to make that substantial investment in either model currently, before someone comes along to point out the cost of the model, at current RRP it would cost over £1000 to replace my terriers.

 

I'll leave you to get on with your busy now.

 

Gary

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, friscopete said:

Gents  ( I dont include ladies as they are sensible ) we  talking and moaning about a plastic toy .Its not like they are important like  Pez dispensers so get a grip.

 

Ah, friscopete

 

the-circle-is-now-complete.jpg.60f2b01170c2a7455e4d255a74a8f333.jpg

 

47 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

Thank you for the response James, it is very much appreciated!

 

I agree with your point of Hornby's rear lamp iron being far from perfect, but it is Hornby, what do we expect?

 

Contrary to popular myth, I don't have lower expectations of Hornby.  Much of its recent output has been superb!

 

Quote

I think the term "Pedigree" that kept coming out of Rails made me expect better.

 

Yeah, pedigree and that whole dog analogy thing.  The Rails-Dapol-NRM partners were put in an extremely difficult position by the Hornby stealth Terrier, and it all played out on camera as we saw, and the Rails publicity machine fought back!  They were bound in these circumstances to promise a better Terrier and, I suggest, they have now delivered one.  

 

Quote

 

The biggest problem with the coal rails is that they appear pre-A1x rebuild. 662 had them by May 1909, as shown in a picture of her repaint into Umber, and 681 had them while it was still a 2-4-0, as 2 examples, both are locos I have models of as so need coal rails, a modification that I personally feel is beyond my ability to get right.

 

I personally am not a fan of either models compromises, as I'm sure you can understand, but I also understand some do need to be made. If my terriers get replaced the new ones will all come from the same source, and if it were not for this issue, I would be very happy to say that they would definitely come from Rails, because I do feel that in other areas they have done a better job, but those coal rails stick out to me a lot more than any of the errors on the Hornby model. As it stands I do not want to make that substantial investment in either model currently, before someone comes along to point out the cost of the model, at current RRP it would cost over £1000 to replace my terriers.

 

OK, this has me confused.  If you are talking about coal rails on A1s, why are you bothered about how they are modelled on A1Xs?

 

Even if you want to have an A1X, I'm still struggling to see how this detachable and replaceable feature is such a biggy for the A1X customer compared with Hornby features such as the wash-out plugs and the missing tank bolts, but, I guess, different issues bother different people to differing extents. So, fair enough.

 

Turning back to coal rails in the prototype, I do not think I have seen a picture of 681 with them as a 2-4-0.  IIRC she went back to 0-6-0 in 1913 (no time to check), which matches the pictures I have seen of her as an A1 in late LBSC lettering with blanked coal rails.

 

For an early umber - lettered LB&SCR - Terrier with coal rails, see 673.  In this case they are open.

 

I cannot find the picture of 662 in 1909, but I predict those are also open coal rails.

 

The A1Xs all have blanked coal rails, so I do not understand the references to 681 and 682; neither 681 as a 2-4-0 or 662 in 1909 are likely to have blanked coal rails.  I think blanked coal rails were fitted from around 1911, but I'd need to check that.

 

If I buy a second Bodiam to back-date to Rother Valley condition, I'll chuck you the coal rails - will that do!

 

  

 

 

Quote

I'll leave you to get on with your busy now.

 

Gary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
spelling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A1 with blanked coal rails, photo is undated but must be pre-December 1921 when the loco was rebuilt as an A1x

 

Capture.PNG.0aa95ffe4f762b53da612ff5ea144d0a.PNG

 

I am concerned with the models as a whole, because if Rails can't get it right now, will they get it right when they eventually release one with coal rails in A1 form? (I am hopeful that these will be a popular enough seller to make it viable for multiple runs to happen in the future)

 

The date of 1911 for the fitting of blanked rails may be correct I cannot remember off the top of my head, that would still make them appropriate for my exhibition layout in 1912, however again I am hopeful that open rails will appear on a future release although again, if they match the existing models they will look just as bad, and I feel still beyond my ability to rectify.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

A1 with blanked coal rails, photo is undated but must be pre-December 1921 when the loco was rebuilt as an A1x

 

Capture.PNG.0aa95ffe4f762b53da612ff5ea144d0a.PNG

 

I am concerned with the models as a whole, because if Rails can't get it right now, will they get it right when they eventually release one with coal rails in A1 form? (I am hopeful that these will be a popular enough seller to make it viable for multiple runs to happen in the future)

 

The date of 1911 for the fitting of blanked rails may be correct I cannot remember off the top of my head, that would still make them appropriate for my exhibition layout in 1912, however again I am hopeful that open rails will appear on a future release although again, if they match the existing models they will look just as bad, and I feel still beyond my ability to rectify.

 

Gary

 

So, your point is that:

- If Rails release an A1 with coal rails, which has not been announced; and,

- If these are blanked and not open, to fit your post-1911 layout

You are concerned that it might not be done quite correctly in the event.

 

Well, I think that's unlikely. For one thing, the A1 tooling has 8 fixing bolts to the tank cladding, as opposed to the 12 in your picture above. 12-bolts are a late A1 feature, so are mostly going to be found on A1Xs.  The tooling suite reflects this, so I doubt that it would be physically possible to produce an A1 with 12 tank bolts, so you are anticipating/hoping for the release of an inaccurate model!

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

will they get it right when they eventually release one with coal rails in A1 form?

 

12 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

- If Rails release an A1 with coal rails, which has not been announced; and,

 

Colour me several shades of confused, guys, But Bodiam is in A1 form with coal rails. Have I missed the bleedin' obvious?

 

image.png.f0505f160798eee2c4694be81788798a.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you show me the terrier that the coal rails as modelled by Rail of Sheffield are accurate then? because I see a lot of people getting an inaccurate model.

 

You asked why I would be interested in blanked coal rails being accurate, I provided a photo. I see no way that makes the coal rails any more accurate.

 

I am hoping that this is a successful enough product for rails to make more in the future, and I am hoping that the "reasonably extensive" tooling suite can be utilised to make more variants in the future.

 

I am also hoping that the "pedigree" terrier will have some "pedigree" to it, and not have glaring errors that have far greater effect on the appearance of the models than errors other companies have been ripped to sheds for on the same prototype.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a footnote to the lively debate that has been played out on here quite recently,I am reminded of the quality of disciplined academic research undertaken by James.....aka Edwardian.....in the pre production phase of Rails Terrier on their behalf.Yes he plays hardball but then we’ve got the results to show for it. 
 

I first saw the array of A1/A1X arrayed behind a glass cabinet at the NRM last October  where they were subject to the admiring gaze and camera lens of the cognoscenti of the model rail world.They reminded me of sweeties in a jar.

 

 So my first Terrier...LBSCR 643....is winging its way to me. They are here to enjoy.Peace is declared ( hopefully) in Terrier Wars.

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, truffy said:

 

 

Colour me several shades of confused, guys, But Bodiam is in A1 form with coal rails. Have I missed the bleedin' obvious?

 

image.png.f0505f160798eee2c4694be81788798a.png

 

So they have, and I notice the open coal rails are just as undersized as the blanked off ones. One hoped for accuracy based on all the marketing hype.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Even if you want to have an A1X, I'm still struggling to see how this detachable and replaceable feature is such a biggy for the A1X customer compared with Hornby features such as the wash-out plugs and the missing tank bolts, but, I guess, different issues bother different people to differing extents. So, fair enough.

 

I think the issues are threefold - one, from a normal layout viewing distance, tiny details like the number of tank fixing bolts and the tank-top recess aren't really visible, wheras the coal rails are very obvious, and really jarring to anyone who knows the locos well. Two, the issue with the coal rails was brought up by several people very early on, when the first EPs came out, so there was plenty of time to correct it; thirdly, you made a huge point of picking up on every little issue with the Hornby one, and telling everyone repeatedly that this was going to be "the definitive" terrier, so you can't really be surprised when people criticise it for having faults!

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, truffy said:

 

 

Colour me several shades of confused, guys, But Bodiam is in A1 form with coal rails. Have I missed the bleedin' obvious?

 

image.png.f0505f160798eee2c4694be81788798a.png

 

Truffy, we were discussing the fitting of coal rails by the Brighton to the A1s remaining in service.

 

Specifically, I said that you probably couldn't accurately produce the combination of features that Blue Lightening wanted in the picture of 659; an A1 with 12 tank bolts.

 

So, in brief, during the period of conversion to motor-train working, 1906-1909, when they started to outshop in umber, they started adding open coal rails to A1s.

 

During the phase of rebuilding to the first A1Xs, 1911-1913, they started adding blanked coal rails, and remaining A1s started to get them, too.

 

None of this has anything to do with Bodiam.  She was sold out of service in 1901.  At some point, after being re-liveried to K&ESR, that railway gave her coal rails.  These were open and not a standard Brighton fitting. 

 

This is what you compare the Bodiam model to.  Note that the 4 fixing bolts are rivets are omitted (as they are by Hornby on Rolvenden) because that would have necessitated a new bunker tool just for this one identity.  A reasonable compromise, in my view. My Bodiam arrived today.  if Gary gives me a chance, I might get to open it!

 

IMG_9134.JPG.8f25c032328a2bcd3ce02ffb264cda00.JPG

IMG_9124.JPG.12f2b7e070f9d3d4ebd6f6576af7d1ee.JPG

 

 

 

1 hour ago, BlueLightning said:

Can you show me the terrier that the coal rails as modelled by Rail of Sheffield are accurate then? because I see a lot of people getting an inaccurate model.

 

You asked why I would be interested in blanked coal rails being accurate, I provided a photo. I see no way that makes the coal rails any more accurate.

 

I am hoping that this is a successful enough product for rails to make more in the future, and I am hoping that the "reasonably extensive" tooling suite can be utilised to make more variants in the future.

 

I am also hoping that the "pedigree" terrier will have some "pedigree" to it, and not have glaring errors that have far greater effect on the appearance of the models than errors other companies have been ripped to sheds for on the same prototype.

 

56 minutes ago, Nick C said:

 

I think the issues are threefold - one, from a normal layout viewing distance, tiny details like the number of tank fixing bolts and the tank-top recess aren't really visible, wheras the coal rails are very obvious, and really jarring to anyone who knows the locos well.

 

As I have said, I cannot really say why this feature was represented in the way it was, but my guess was that it was to accommodate the correctly positioned bunker lamp iron for the A1 and avoid having to tool for a new bunker.  Many of Hornby's compromises do not suit me, e.g. the cab rear sheet.  This one by Dapol does suit me is beneficial for A1 purchasers, unlike Hornby's choice, which facilitates the bunker rails the way you want them, but b*ggers up the bunker rear of A1s with a lamp iron that shouldn't be there.    Neither manufacturer can please everyone.

 

What you're both ultimately sore about is that a compromise seems to have been made that favour of early condition locos, whereas Hornby made a similar compromise that favours late condition locos. While I sympathise, it is not possible to please everyone.    

 

I just don't buy the gripe that Dapol's greater accuracy over several areas is negated by this one feature, but I think we have to accept that difficult choices lead to results that don't suit everyone. Not sure what you want me to say, but I evidently see the comparative merits of the two Terrier options differently. Sorry if you find that in some way unsatisfactory.

 

I don't find the issues with the Hornby loco that you claim as hardly visible to be so; rather, "very obvious, and really jarring to anyone who knows the locos well" sums up my response to those issues.

 

Clearly we are not going to agree.  It is fortunate, then, that it's not my job to agree with you!

 

Quote

Two, the issue with the coal rails was brought up by several people very early on, when the first EPs came out, so there was plenty of time to correct it; 

 

 

So far as I recall that was a different issue with the coal rails, which was addressed.  Perhaps you could share with us your detailed critique of the particular issue with the coal rails that exercises you now, you know, the one that you sent to Rails leaving them plenty of time to correct things?

 

Quote

thirdly, you made a huge point of picking up on every little issue with the Hornby

 

 

There were a lot of points to pick up on.

 

Not sure that's my fault.

 

Quote

one, and telling everyone repeatedly that this was going to be "the definitive" terrier, so you can't really be surprised when people criticise it for having faults!

 

Not as I recall. 

 

It's not definitive, in my view, and I doubt that it's possible or necessary to produce a definitive version of anything. I have mentioned a number of times that it is not perfect. 

 

It is, however, in my view, the better model.  And I'll stand by that as fair comment.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
spelling!
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

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.