Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

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

 

Thanks, James!

 

If my OCD gets too bothered by the lack of bolts, I can always add some. Likewise, I can fettle the bunker on 2644 if I need to.

 

Some of the things that Rails/Dapol got right would be a damned sight more difficult to fix if they hadn't though.

 

Edited by truffy
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly question, but why did either Dapol/Rails or Hornby fix the tail lamp bracket on, and not just provide it as a variant in the bag of bits that the user could fit themselves? That way the coal rails could be made correct by both manufacturers, and also fitted as a separate part?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 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

looking at those coal rails compared with the photos, Im not sure how they thought that would pass as similar in any way, the old Dapol terrier had no problems getting it right, for a premium price is it unreasonable to expect a model which is equally premium?

Edited by Charon
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, truffy said:

 

Some of the things that Rails/Dapol got right would be a damned sight more difficult to fix if they hadn't though.

 

 

That's rather been my view.

 

42 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

Silly question, but why did either Dapol/Rails or Hornby fix the tail lamp bracket on, and not just provide it as a variant in the bag of bits that the user could fit themselves? That way the coal rails could be made correct by both manufacturers, and also fitted as a separate part?

 

Each separate part is an additional cost.  I don't see how Hornby would be able to provide a separate lamp iron in their chosen position without a fixing hole in the bunker, which would be unsightly where not correct and still requires different tooling.

 

There comes a point with these little locos where you just have to stop trying to cover all possible variants. It really is a case of swings and roundabouts.

 

6 minutes ago, Charon said:

looking at those coal rails compared with the photos, Im not sure how they thought that would pass as similar in any way, the old Dapol terrier had no problems getting it right

 

Well I don't recall the old (1989) Dapol Terrier having coal rails, but if it did, I suspect they were blanked. If so, they don't offer much of a useful comparison.

 

I don't think Bodiam's coal rails are a perfect match for the prototype by any means, but they look a lot better in the flesh.  it's a rather nice etched part, but in the flesh, doesn't look so ephemeral as they appear in the picture.  I find them a pretty reasonable attempt. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Bodiam has arrived, so I thought I'd post some pictures

 

Starting with the rear:

- Correct rear cab sheet, with vertical join plate

- Correct absence of window bars

- Correct position of upper lamp iron

- Correct length tool box

- Correctly inset buffers

IMG_9144.JPG.f0ed0c8e443249b73030fa1cd4f44e07.JPG

 

And together with Hornby's Rolvenden, which aside from the condensing pipes, represen ts the same condition and same period as Bodiam:

342058597_IMG_9140-Copy.JPG.4c5e1085c5751145eff64caa1f5eca63.JPG

 

An upper view, showing:

- Recessed formed by the tank tops with the correct cut-outs in the cladding for the tank filler and steam exhaust dome.

- Correct shape to Salter valve balance levers

- Terminal fittings on the boiler handrails correctly picked out in brass

From this angle you can also pick up how fine and close to scale the wing plate is; it's an etched part, and see something of the motion represented between the frames.

Personally I will be painting the cab floor in due course.

IMG_9257.JPG.ac70a5c4b25e97a72bfa54c55c9c6793.JPG

 

And the Hornby take ...

IMG_9150.JPG.7447d62c81110c18103ed675ec86798e.JPG

 

 

General views.  I find the clack valve well done, the the pipe correctly in copper and in the correct position for the period, instead of swept back as seen in later condition locos. 

 

This also shows something of the cab interior and the individually glazed spectacles.

IMG_9223.JPG.ce6694839086f97f81ef9269e816086d.JPG

IMG_9219.JPG.b6411e8e38f697d1f1e0e7e76aa43c0f.JPG

 

A view of the face, showing the smoke box door hinge straps are short, which is correct for this period, as opposed to the long ones found on late condition engines.

 

IMG_9238.JPG.82f3ac45635205e949f670513cdb70ce.JPG

 

And the Hornby face for contrast ...

IMG_9175.JPG.a531c23c727b7ff2ab7dcd2810fb599f.JPG

 

Finally, how the fire box glow looks on the DC version ...

IMG_9249.JPG.1d130ed7b38621625c72ded786bfc232.JPG

 

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
  • Informative/Useful 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting to see the comparison to the Hornby loco @Edwardian even if the prototypes were slightly different. 

 

There's something about the chassis that makes it look better but I can't quite pin down what it is. Might be the wheels and rods. That's reminds me, are the wheels diecast as originally specified? 

 

I also notice the coal hole in the cab back sheet has been added, something the early 00 samples and O gauge version lacked. 

 

One question I do have is: On DC, does the firebox glow light up the cab as shown in the video by Jenny or is it more subtle in DC only mode? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

Very interesting to see the comparison to the Hornby loco @Edwardian even if the prototypes were slightly different. 

 

Yes, though aside from the name and the condensing pipes, at this period they should pretty much match.

 

2 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

There's something about the chassis that makes it look better but I can't quite pin down what it is. Might be the wheels and rods. That's reminds me, are the wheels diecast as originally specified? 

 

I'm not sure what.  I vastly prefer the Rails guard irons, but they're black here and really quite hard to pick out. Apart from those hex nuts, I think the Hornby one does pretty well under the valance.  Personally I like the blue wheels, though I suspect it is not possible to know whether they should be blue or black.

 

Sadly the wheels are not diecast, which I feel would have been preferable.  I don't know why they turned out that way. I believe they do, however, have correctly profiled spokes, as opposed to flat faced, so it might be the wheels that you find persuasive! 

 

2 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

I also notice the coal hole in the cab back sheet has been added, something the early 00 samples and O gauge version lacked. 

 

Yes, a gain!

 

2 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

One question I do have is: On DC, does the firebox glow light up the cab as shown in the video by Jenny or is it more subtle in DC only mode? 

 

I am told that the glow is far more effective on the DCC version, so I was pleasantly surprised, 'cos my DC one looked plenty effective to me!

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

This model of the A1X "Terrier" has been touted for the last 2 years as going to be "premium'. "prestige" or "ultimate", and comes at a premium price, as compared with the Hornby competitor. I, for one, am not prepared to pay a premium price for a model which is in no way superior to the new Hornby offering, or even the 40 year old Dapol/Hornby alternatives. True the chassis looks fabulous and the mechanism may be much better - the Hornby model had problems with the pick-ups, but none of mine suffer in any way.

Reference is often made in reviews to the "face" of a model being either outstanding or substandard, and it must be remembered that any tank engine has 2 faces - front and back. The coal rails on the Rails A1X bunker are a disaster. It looks as if the item has been inserted into the bunker rather than extending right around the perimeter of the bunker - almost as if it has been manufactured to H0 scale. Not only does it not extend the full length of the bunker, but it is too narrow as well. This discrepancy in width cannot be ascribed to the positioning of the lamp iron. Unfortunately I do not have any photographs of the rear end of Terriers with this bunker in BR days, but I do have a shot of 55 on the Bluebell Railway taken from above, which I hope shows how this rear end "face" should look, and gives an idea of how far off the mark the Rails model is. I'm also attaching my one and only shot of 32661, from which you can see that the coal rails are flush with the cab sides. For a model costing £110 upwards - approx £30 more than the Hornby version - it should not be necessary for the purchaser to butcher the bodywork to produce a decent result. The rear face of any locomotive is a major visual  feature, as opposed to a mere detail. The bunker does, after all, constitute around 15% of the entire bodywork. I suspect, as suggested elsewhere, that this was a result of cost consideration, but this cost saving has not been passed on to the purchaser. 

55_"stepney"_and_65_app._Horsted_Keynes_from_Kingscote_11-8-07_0807:087.JPG

32661 Eastleigh X1412a © John Goss LBIPP.jpg

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, that's me done for the evening. No one pays me to deal with this essentially repetitive whinging. I've had enough for one day!

 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, gpx1338 said:

I, for one, am not prepared to pay a premium price for a model which is in no way superior to the .... or even the 40 year old Dapol/Hornby alternatives

 

Sorry, I cannot take any of the rest of the comments particularly seriously if your judgment is that skewed.

 

Apart from some of the moans being incorrect on recent pages the repetition is tedious; once a point has been made I really do not see the point of hammering the same screw in.*

 

* Use of incorrect metaphorical fixing and tool entirely intentional.

 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 11
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

...

Well I don't recall the old (1989) Dapol Terrier having coal rails, but if it did, I suspect they were blanked. If so, they don't offer much of a useful comparison.

...

 

If I remember correctly, a moulded coal rail/coal part was included wtih the Dapol model in the bag of bits so that it could be added if wanted.

 

12 minutes ago, gpx1338 said:

This model of the A1X "Terrier" has been touted for the last 2 years as going to be "premium'. "prestige" or "ultimate", and comes at a premium price, as compared with the Hornby competitor. I, for one, am not prepared to pay a premium price for a model which is in no way superior to the new Hornby offering, or even the 40 year old Dapol/Hornby alternatives. True the chassis looks fabulous and the mechanism may be much better - the Hornby model had problems with the pick-ups, but none of mine suffer in any way.

Reference is often made in reviews to the "face" of a model being either outstanding or substandard, and it must be remembered that any tank engine has 2 faces - front and back. The coal rails on the Rails A1X bunker are a disaster. It looks as if the item has been inserted into the bunker rather than extending right around the perimeter of the bunker - almost as if it has been manufactured to H0 scale. Not only does it not extend the full length of the bunker, but it is too narrow as well. This discrepancy in width cannot be ascribed to the positioning of the lamp iron. Unfortunately I do not have any photographs of the rear end of Terriers with this bunker in BR days, but I do have a shot of 55 on the Bluebell Railway taken from above, which I hope shows how this rear end "face" should look, and gives an idea of how far off the mark the Rails model is. I'm also attaching my one and only shot of 32661, from which you can see that the coal rails are flush with the cab sides. For a model costing £110 upwards - approx £30 more than the Hornby version - it should not be necessary for the purchaser to butcher the bodywork to produce a decent result. The rear face of any locomotive is a major visual  feature, as opposed to a mere detail. The bunker does, after all, constitute around 15% of the entire bodywork. I suspect, as suggested elsewhere, that this was a result of cost consideration, but this cost saving has not been passed on to the purchaser.

 

So not only are you describing the Rails/Dapol model as equivalent to the old Dapol tooling (which it in no way is) but you're also complaining about the only error in the model which is probably one of the easiest for us to fix if a replacement part is made available? I agree the coal rails are wrong and they need sorting out and I'm sure Rails/Dapol will be made very much aware of it, but come on, it's fixable and to do so it would not be necessary to 'butcher the bodywork' to do it.

 

I think your posting is a tad over-the-top...

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

IMG_9249.JPG.1d130ed7b38621625c72ded786bfc232.JPG

 

 

 

 

Stunning, well that decides it, I have to admit a small part of me was hoping it would be a duff un so I could avoid the expense, but I am simply too taken. Now, how to get the wallet out of the mouse trap.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gpx1338 said:

I suspect, as suggested elsewhere, that this was a result of cost consideration, but this cost saving has not been passed on to the purchaser. 


And how exactly do you know that!

 

Its quite possible that tooling up extra bunker variants would have put an extra £30 on the RRP - by not producing the extra tooling Dapol have this actually SAVED the purchaser money, not charged them for the sake of it.

 

As has been made clear before ALL RTR models (not just the Dapol Terrier) are a compromise between what most folk are prepared to spend and how much tooling variations can be afforded by said price.

 

You personally may not like the compromises taken - and by extension would be prepared to pay more to have more tooling options, but you are not the one trying to ensure Dapol stays in business.
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to lamp brackets, my personal preference would be to not have them fitted (or as part of a mould tooling), and have them provided as extras in the bits bag. Agreed there might be a hole in the bunker back that could be visible, but I'd prefer that to the current compromise, either on the lamp bracket with Hornby's or on the coal rails with Rails/Dapol's.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to chuck my tuppenceworth in.

 

In their own ways, both the Hornby and Dapol/Rails models are splendid examples of current RTR and EACH has its own set of compromises.  You pays your money and you take your choice, there's no point in complaining at the compromises!

 

The Rails Terrier looks terrific, but the Hornby one will do for me (Its a Rule 1 loco after all is said and done).

 

btw BOTH are better than the old Dapol/Hornby version, which was of its time!

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I wasn't going to post here again because things had gotten a bit out of hand, but I must ask, what is with the personal attacks on James? Yes he has a reputation for holding manufacturers to extraordinarily high standards, and yes he had some involvement with this model, but I have no doubt that his involvement improved what Rails finally produced, and I can guarantee nothing he did would have resulted in compromises such as the coal rails. I blame my disappointment in this model solely on Rails overselling what finally arrived, I expected more based on what was said by them. I directed my comment at James as an insider, but not as an attack on him!

 

and as for comparing the model to the Dapol original, that is just absurd, I have sat an original next to a Hornby one, and can confirm the Hornby one is in a total different league to the original, in fact I'm not even sure they are playing the same sport! and I see no reason the Rails one isn't as good as the Hornby one, the question of weather it is worth £30 more is another argument, after all I could buy an old tooling one for the difference in price if I were so inclined!

 

I almost wish I hadn't asked about the coal rails now, even though I feel it needed bringing up, it has gone way past what it needed to.

 

and I'm off (again)

 

Gary

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if 'pedigree' hadn't been used so often feedback may have been kinder, or more considerate?  Unlikely, but Hornby's release demanded that a claim be made.

 

I pre-ordered A1X 32655 in Mar'18 and looking at what's been shared thus far I'm glad I haven't waivered.

 

Until they start being delivered (to the wider public!), herewith further pictures found on Twitter this morning: -

 

My one and only Terrier was the Dapol Stepney, bought by my father in the 1990s - a prized possession.  Whatever the sticking points, the progress made is incomparable.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

No such leeway has been afforded to Rails and these pages have seen their model held to impossible standards; it's still streets ahead of its rival, particularly with the A1, as the comparison of the K&ESR pair makes abundantly clear.

 

Perhaps some people, who may or may not be trolling (not aimed at the more level-headed critics), interpreted 'definitive' as 'perfect'. As any fule kno, perfection is nigh-on unattainable, commercial considerations aside.

 

Being an owner of the original Hornby/Dapol model, of which I still stand by my description as 'blobby', comparing it favourably to the current crop is mind-bogglingly asinine.

 

Unfortunately, I will have to wait some time before I get my Rails models in my sticky mits. They've been sent to a UK address, and I can't get there until travel restrictions ease up. Hey-ho, there's other stuff to do in the meantime.

 

(But I do like Rolvelden's blue wheels!)

Edited by truffy
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems from the last three posts is that the dissatisfaction rests to some extent with the perception that Rails oversold its Terrier. I have great respect for the good sense and fair-mindedness of the three members posting these views.  On this matter, though, I'm not sure I'd agree - I don't recall anyone claiming it was "definitive", let alone perfect, and I think you could stand before the advertising standards people and say hand on heart that relatively speaking it is "pedigree". Also, I think people were free all along to reach their own view based on the release of information and pictures as the project progressed.  

 

But I'm not sure any of that is really to the point.  i think Rails were forced by the Hornby announcement to show clear blue water between Hornby's first-to-market product and their later-to-arrive and more expensive product. Ironically, Hornby tripped up in a couple of ways in their rush, so actually created more distance between their model and Rails than need have been the case, but Rails had more tooling options and thus capacity for prototype fidelity and higher 'production values' in certain areas (motor, sound, etched parts etc), so was always going to be a better quality product.  Clearly there was a need to reassure the potential  customer that it was at least £30 better.  I happen to think it is, others do not. but I'm quite happy to agree to disagree on that. Perception of value is, after all, a pretty subjective thing.  

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

for me, the rails Terrier should have no mistakes, It's £30 more, been delayed and delayed (and not just because of COVID19) sighting "getting it right".

 

Having said that, for me personally the one thing that bugs me about the Hornby version is the glazing, when compared to the Rails one it stands out, is that and a fire box glow worth spending £30 more on, not too sure.

 

And my last sentence is the crux of it, can "you" justify to your self the extra £30, for me no as 30 notes buys me a mk3 sliding door carriage :)

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness, things have got heated here, i look forward to having both Hornby & Rails SR variants side by side for comparison and I'm sure Graham Muz will be along with a detailed review in due course. 

 

I can understand why the coal rails are a big deal for someone like Gary, the man lives and breaths Terriers and his collection of improved early Dapol/Hornby models are stunning. 

 

Will it bother me? Probably not, I admit I was, regrettably, part of the Slagging Off Hornby brigade before I received my model but now I adore it and don't notice the wrong bits at all. Unless people point these things out on prototypes in photos on here, I'm none the wiser =) ignorance is bliss. 

 

As I said to Gary privately, knowing too much about a prototype seems to be a curse in this hobby sometimes :p

 

Let's try not to be keyboard warriors, there's enough of them elsewhere on the Internet. 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

I haven't been following this thread lately, so when this arrived this morning, completely out of the blue, it was a nice surprise:

20200514_110807.jpg.cc70b48bfc9c54bc49a4db9dc18941f5.jpg

 

20200514_110816.jpg.cb3a4181aeccae2082dd5a8e794b1cd0.jpg

 

As I've stated before, I bought this Rails example, plus the Hornby Terrier, because I like 'em and decided to invent an excuse to have two ex-LBSC examples sold (via various shady railway organisations) to my own outrageously improbable light railway.

 

I'm no expert on Terriers and because these are to be depicted as somewhat run down, wheezing examples of improvised light railway 'make do and mend', I'm not particularly worried about the detail differences.

 

I will certainly have to tone the footplate cream colour down and find a way to extinguish the annoying firebox flicker permanently.

 

But the main irritation, upon trying to run it on 'Bethesda Sidings', was the fact that there is a problem with the pick ups, leading to jerky and totally unacceptable running. So that's yet another modern RTR steam loco that's going to require more intrusive attention, although to be fair, I think the wheel profile adopted by Dapol will be happier on my track, specifically the OO-SF pointwork on part of the layout (not that illustrated), as compared with the Hornby example, (for which I am actively contemplating having to completely replace the chassis with an etched example, Markits wheels and a decent motor gearbox combination).

 

This Dapol-engineered example, however, has given me hope that it might be persuaded to match the excellent running qualities of my B4.

 

Edited by Captain Kernow
  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

My 32661 has arrived. No pictures at the moment as I'm 'at work' albeit at home.

 

It looks beautiful, just like a Terrier. Of the issues discussed only the coal rails really stand out, and 'in the flesh' actually don't look that bad.

 

Things to do then:

 

Replace coal rails;

Remove air brake pipe;

Add vacuum brake pipe (not in bits bag);

Add steam heat pipe (in bits bag);

Remove and reposition smokebox door number plate;

 

It would have been nice to have the brake pipes correct, and the smokebox door number positioned right but these aren't deal breakers. This is without a doubt the strongest starting point to get a 'perfect' Terrier to start from.

 

Well done Dapol and Rails. A little extra effort and I believe this could very well be a 'best of breed'.

 

:)

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had time over the last day to photograph the model and write up the full review in the July issue of BRM.

 

Box.jpg

 

1.jpg

 

6.jpg

 

I've weighed things up from my perspective and my closing words will be "In summary this is a very well executed model of an attractive and interesting prototype. Yes, there are differences between this and its competitor. Which one is best for you may depend on which permutation is available but in a head to head my decision is on the Rails/Dapol side due to the ease of DCC fitting, sound provision and additional functionality, a technical win. In addition to that there is a greater variety of models available with clear evidence that the tooling produced will be able to replicate virtually every locomotive in this complex class."

 

 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 4
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.