Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, JeremyKarl said:

Thanks for the quick reply. I was surprised by the language of the manual as I had assumed no difference re chip settings too. I normally prefer to fit my own chips - it's an excuse to look inside if nothing else.

 

 

If it is like the Dapol B4, be careful when you take it apart. The special moving axle arrangement is said to be a cow to put back right if it pops out as you remove the chassis clear from the body on the B4 model. (and don't forget the prefitted loosely fitted speaker as well).

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
32 minutes ago, JeremyKarl said:

The sole thing that disappointed me is the lack of sprung buffers, a feature the lack of which I know some don't mind. (I accept sprung buffers are purely a personal preference and I had assumed it would have them like the B4 from Dapol and the P from Hattons, though I now see the terriers were not advertised as such.)

 

It's a bit of a shame, I was doubly disappointed because some of the photos actually look like the buffers are sprung!

 

I stumped up for the sound fitted model and i'm looking forward to it arriving - followed by me tearing it apart and repainting it. Although it looks like i'll need to be careful putting the body on and taking it off again. 

 

I really hope Rails decide to do a 'BRIGHTON WORKS' version at some point too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As commented on previously, one certainly gets an odd effect with photos of the bunker. I would swear by eye that the coal rails all line up perfectly when I examine the model in my hands and yet I get a photo like the one shown (excuse the poor quality picture) with the deceptive apparent misalignment. And they say the camera never lies... but it certainly deceives!

20200515_214821.jpg.7adb17ee84f1c7679b073ff455627177.jpg
Jeremy

p.s. 

I agree with JSpencer re the difficulty in having sprung buffers given the height of the shank and conventional springing methods but one can always live in hope...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JeremyKarl said:

As commented on previously, one certainly gets an odd effect with photos of the bunker. I would swear by eye that the coal rails all line up perfectly when I examine the model in my hands and yet I get a photo like the one shown (excuse the poor quality picture) with the deceptive apparent misalignment. And they say the camera never lies... but it certainly deceives!

20200515_214821.jpg.7adb17ee84f1c7679b073ff455627177.jpg

 

Could this be an illusion created by the direction of the lighting, as explained earlier by @AY Mod?

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/132605-rails-of-sheffielddapolnrm-announce-oo-gauge-stroudley-a1a1x/&do=findComment&comment=3963369

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

 

If it is like the Dapol B4, be careful when you take it apart. The special moving axle arrangement is said to be a cow to put back right if it pops out as you remove the chassis clear from the body on the B4 model. (and don't forget the prefitted loosely fitted speaker as well).

The videos I've seen show the Terriers chassis splits cleanly from the body except from the speaker, though the video I've seen shows it stuck to the inside of the tank somehow. The B4 is an exception I think 

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JSpencer said:

If it is like the Dapol B4, be careful when you take it apart. The special moving axle arrangement is said to be a cow to put back right if it pops out as you remove the chassis clear from the body on the B4 model. (

 

The Terrier is completely different from the B4, there is no need to remove the keeper plate for body access on the Terrier. If you do remove the keeper plate on the Terrier though it doesn't go into automatic self-disassembly mode like the B4.

  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, truffy said:

 

Definitely - once you get model-in-hand it's clear that coal rail alignment is fine around the bunker. 

 

When I queried that a few days back, I was totally unaware of the size/positioning issue that was then discussed by others with much greater knowledge of the prototype.  I currently have one each of the Rails/Dapol and Hornby models running round the layout, and to me it's one of those "you can see the differences if you look closely" things.  I accept the evidence that one is "correct" to the prototype and one isn't, but to me they look just like different local applications of the same modification. 

 

I'm happy with both models...

Edited by 3rd Rail Exile
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, 3rd Rail Exile said:

 

Definitely - once you get model-in-hand it's clear that coal rail alignment is fine around the bunker. 

 

When I queried that a few days back, I was totally unaware of the size/positioning issue that was then discussed by others with much greater knowledge of the prototype.  I currently have one each of the Rails/Dapol and Hornby models running round the layout, and to me it's one of those "you can see the differences if you look closely" things.  I accept the evidence that one is "correct" to the prototype and one isn't, but to me they look just like different local applications of the same modification

 

I'm happy with both models...

 

(my bold)

 

The problem is that while that is what it looks like on the Rails model, it's sufficiently in error from prototype that it's quite noticeable if you are reasonably knowledgeable of the prototype.

 

I will say, as I have said many times before, that when a model is of a prototype we particularly care about, errors such as this are much more noticeable than on a model of a prototype we are less interested in. Too wit, I don't particularly care about the cab roof shape of a Class 52 Western, but to those who love them that error on the Heljan version was very noticeable; conversely I really notice the front cab windows on a BR(S) Mk1 derived multiple unit, such that both Hornby's VEP and Kernow/Bachmann's 4TC feel wrong as something is either obviously (VEP) or less obviously (4TC) wrong with their tooling, and I can't bring myself to buy either as it just isn't right enough for me to overlook it.

 

With the Rails Terrier, most of it is right and what isn't is not structural so it stands a chance of me being able to fix it without having to repaint the locomotive afterwards. In that respect the only thing I need to sort out the coal rails is to source a good enough quality replacement that is correct for fitting the bunker once the lamp iron protrusion has been removed.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

the only thing I need to sort out the coal rails is to source a good enough quality replacement that is correct for fitting the bunker once the lamp iron protrusion has been removed.

 

Once I've got hold mine to examine them, I'm tempted to make something up out of brass or styrene. The structure looks simple enough to be within even my modest modelling skills.

 

But, no doubt something will also come up on the after-market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My Terrier arrived this week and sadly it's on it's way back already. I ordered the version of Bodiam, and when it arrived, the paint finish on the cab rear spectacle plates wasn't correct on one window. Rails have been very quick to sort it out so far, and I hope to get a better one next week!

  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ian J. said:

...the only thing I need to sort out the coal rails is to source a good enough quality replacement that is correct for fitting the bunker once the lamp iron protrusion has been removed.

 

Please post details on here if you do source a "good enough quality replacement" - whilst I'm happy with the model I'm not beyond correcting known errors!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, BlueLightning said:

 

I got an update on this from someone that has both models, and drawings of the class, turns out the Rails version is too short, it's only 1mm out, but the whole loco is short by a scale 3"

 

LBSC Terrier length 23ft so 92mm in 4mm
Hornby Terrier 92mm
Rails Terrier 91mm


You are correct that the length across the footplate (rather than over buffers, which introduces a variable o shank and housing types)  on the original is indeed 23’ therefore 92mm 

I have measured mine this morning with my vernier and it also measures 92mm 

Edited by Graham_Muz
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Graham_Muz said:


You are correct that the length across the footplate (rather than over buffers, which introduces a variable o shank and housing types)  on the original is indeed 23’ therefore 92mm 

I have measured mine this morning with my vernier and it also measures 92mm 

 

So you are saying the Rails one is correct then? If so I am glad to hear that! As I say I got my info 2nd hand, and I am now wondering about the length of the Hornby one!

 

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

I'm not sure when I'm going to be able to take the chassis of my Rails example apart, in order to try to sort out the pick up problem, but can anyone kindly advise whether the chassis uses conventional pick ups (ie. 'wiper' types) or something else, such as split chassis?

 

Thanks.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BlueLightning said:

 

So you are saying the Rails one is correct then? If so I am glad to hear that! As I say I got my info 2nd hand, and I am now wondering about the length of the Hornby one!

 

Gary


A quick measurement of mine suggests that in fact the Hornby one may be 1mm too long!

20200516_134752.jpg
20200516_134448.jpg

The ruler hasn't moved between these shots, but the Hornby model looks to be somewhere between 92.5 and 93mm long. Ooops!

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

I'm not sure when I'm going to be able to take the chassis of my Rails example apart, in order to try to sort out the pick up problem, but can anyone kindly advise whether the chassis uses conventional pick ups (ie. 'wiper' types) or something else, such as split chassis

 

 

Centre_axle.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Cheers, Andy, that looks like no 'traditional' pick ups, but some kind of continuous contact with the respective axle bearings and split axles?

 

If so, I wonder why mine is performing so poorly?

 

I'm due to give a couple of other RTR locos a few hours running round on my circle of Lima track, prior to being worked on, so perhaps I'll let this Terrier have a run as well.

 

 

 

Edited by Captain Kernow
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

 

So you are saying the Rails one is correct then? If so I am glad to hear that! As I say I got my info 2nd hand, and I am now wondering about the length of the Hornby one!

 

Gary

 

The dangers of relying upon secondary sources, Gary.

 

Thanks to Graham for his answer.  I don't have a Vernier to hand, but Hornby's is slightly longer and by eyeball and steel rule, Hornby's Rolvenden is coming out at 92.5mm, as Linny says. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

The dangers of relying upon secondary sources, Gary.

 

Thanks to Graham for his answer.  I don't have a Vernier to hand, but Hornby's is slightly longer and by eyeball and steel rule, Hornby's Rolvenden is coming out at 92.5mm, as Linny says. 


Found my vernier, and I measure it at 92.9mm.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

Cheers, Andy, that looks like no 'traditional' pick ups, but some kind of continuous contact with the respective axle bearings and split axles?

 

If so, I wonder why mine is performing so poorly?

 

I'm due to give a couple of other RTR locos a few hours running round on my circle of Lima track, prior to being worked on, so perhaps I'll let this Terrier have a run as well.

 

 

 

I suggest you give the wheels a thorough clean. Mine certainly needed it.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:


Found my vernier, and I measure it at 92.9mm.

 

Thanks, Linny. 

 

Someone fed you duff gen, Gary.

 

So, shock horror, attempts to prove that the Rails Terrier is too short end in failure, but prove that Hornby's is too long (!) (but not, I suggest, to an extent anyone with the Hornby model should lose sleep over). 

 

So that really didn't achieve very much overall, did it?  Can we please now stop trying to find fault?!?  

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
clarity & spelling
  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
5 minutes ago, Nile said:

I suggest you give the wheels a thorough clean. Mine certainly needed it.

Thanks, that's helpful. I'd have got to that in due course, but I didn't have time to really investigate yesterday, just wanted to see how it ran 'out of the box'.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Someone fed you duff gen, Gary.

 

 

Having seen some Facebook posts I think I know who it will have been and that he likes to make a noise.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
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.