Jump to content

Dapol Announce OO Gauge Bogie Bolster E


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Is on your sheet John 

 

would have expected it to go where the black box at t’other end to wagon number is ...so with that box there as per Paul’s photos...where does it go? Cheers

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

Is on your sheet John 

 

would have expected it to go where the black box at t’other end to wagon number is ...so with that box there as per Paul’s photos...where does it go? Cheers

 

 

 

As close to the RH end as the black box permits.

 

In my experience, the tare weight was usually at the RH end, with the black box (where applied) to its left.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

Is on your sheet John 

 

would have expected it to go where the black box at t’other end to wagon number is ...so with that box there as per Paul’s photos...where does it go? Cheers

 

 

I have a couple of earlyish photos (which I am expecting Dapol to reproduce at least one of if enough of the present runs sell!).

They differ.

https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/brbbe/eb5f13cad shows the tare at the extreme end. I have struggled to scan this Agfa slide but I think this June 67 photo is in original condition.

This july 67 photo has the maintenance panel at the right hand - which I believe was quite new then. The rest of the writing is original but different (no boxes of the 1964 style) and the tare has been written over the running number! This has a triangle alongside which should give a year of this painting.

 

Paul

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

I have a couple of earlyish photos (which I am expecting Dapol to reproduce at least one of if enough of the present runs sell!).

They differ.

https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/brbbe/eb5f13cad shows the tare at the extreme end. I have struggled to scan this Agfa slide but I think this June 67 photo is in original condition.

This july 67 photo has the maintenance panel at the right hand - which I believe was quite new then. The rest of the writing is original but different (no boxes of the 1964 style) and the tare has been written over the running number! This has a triangle alongside which should give a year of this painting.

 

Paul

 

Thanks Paul

 

What your photos all show is that as usual wagons were well down the list for application of standardised new liveries. The tare weight at the extreme end can be replicated with CCT's transfers so will go down that road - many thanks for sharing.  

 

The era thing comes up again though! Given these wagons were early 60s build and steam finished here in Sept 66 - although really was last knockings only after Jan 66 - the wagons ran at least as long in the current Dapol livery in the pre TOPs diesel era - with TOPs starting in 73 - rather than in the steam era. Will lose the maintenance panel on some too....

 

So back to the couplings.

 

Have cut down the NEM pocket and coupling tails and changed the couplings for the shortest ones in my spares box which gives us

 

3A0AA92F-11C7-4E59-86B8-01106CC4CD22.jpeg

 

Looks like this at the business end - OK the NEM standards police will be after me for sure!

 

B9E2FA58-DEF3-4374-9762-12165D555244.jpeg

 

 

Back to the originals....

4D4F930E-AD10-4851-88AD-04744368FA7B.jpeg

Edited by Phil Bullock
Text added
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

As close to the RH end as the black box permits.

 

In my experience, the tare weight was usually at the RH end, with the black box (where applied) to its left.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

BBE.jpg.4c9cc87be6c21f1248eec34aff3b0b61.jpg

 

Loads of room there, Phil, for the tare weight - to the right of the black box.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

 

Snip.

 

So back to the couplings.

 

Have cut down the NEM pocket and coupling tails and changed the couplings for the shortest ones in my spares box which gives us

 

3A0AA92F-11C7-4E59-86B8-01106CC4CD22.jpeg

 

Looks like this at the business end - OK the NEM standards police will be after me for sure!

 

B9E2FA58-DEF3-4374-9762-12165D555244.jpeg

 

I hesitate to make comment about "NEM couplings", having previously made what I thought to be useful comments only to get what, I seem to recall, were pretty adverse responses!

 

Anyway, I think you should be safe from the "NEM standards police"!  From what I can see, there seems no reason why Dapol couldn't have made a coupling like the one you have made, i.e. with the "fishtail" end only.  There seems no requirement to have both a coupling pocket with a fishtail end and a coupling with a swallowtail end that goes into that pocket.  I think that is what they have provided, from one of your earlier pictures?

 

The NEM standards appear only to be with regard to the pockets:

"Standard Pocket" (NEM 362) - to take swallow tailed ended couplings; and

"Special Mount for Models where Space is restricted" (NEM363) - to take the fish tail ended couplings.

i.e. the tension lock couplings don't seem to be the subject of a standard, just the pockets.  The very name of the 363 Standard would also seem to apply for this particular vehicle!

 

The NEM standards can be found here, in German and French:

https://www.morop.eu/index.php/de/nem-normen.html

https://www.morop.eu/index.php/fr/nem-normes.html

 

These links from Wikipedia, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normen_Europäischer_Modellbahnen  The "English" link on there takes you to a page on "Wayback Machine", so a link to the Double O Gauge Association webpage which provides an english translation is: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/couplings.htm

 

Hope this of interest.  Your changes and modifications look a lot more reasonable.  Hopefully Dapol can provide an amended, specific coupling with future releases.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, 26power said:

 

I hesitate to make comment about "NEM couplings", having previously made what I thought to be useful comments only to get what, I seem to recall, were pretty adverse responses!

 

Anyway, I think you should be safe from the "NEM standards police"!  From what I can see, there seems no reason why Dapol couldn't have made a coupling like the one you have made, i.e. with the "fishtail" end only.  There seems no requirement to have both a coupling pocket with a fishtail end and a coupling with a swallowtail end that goes into that pocket.  I think that is what they have provided, from one of your earlier pictures?

 

The NEM standards appear only to be with regard to the pockets:

"Standard Pocket" (NEM 362) - to take swallow tailed ended couplings; and

"Special Mount for Models where Space is restricted" (NEM363) - to take the fish tail ended couplings.

i.e. the tension lock couplings don't seem to be the subject of a standard, just the pockets.  The very name of the 363 Standard would also seem to apply for this particular vehicle!

 

The NEM standards can be found here, in German and French:

https://www.morop.eu/index.php/de/nem-normen.html

https://www.morop.eu/index.php/fr/nem-normes.html

 

These links from Wikipedia, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normen_Europäischer_Modellbahnen  The "English" link on there takes you to a page on "Wayback Machine", so a link to the Double O Gauge Association webpage which provides an english translation is: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/couplings.htm

 

Hope this of interest.  Your changes and modifications look a lot more reasonable.  Hopefully Dapol can provide an amended, specific coupling with future releases.

 

3 hours ago, 26power said:

 

 

Thanks for kind comments

 

Yes thats correct - fish tail and swallow tail. Will pin cut down couplings in to cut down pocket by drilling through with 0.6mm drill and inserting wire for additional security - wouldnt want the coupling to come unglued at the head of a 20 wagon train at a key moment in a show.

 

Do find that the fish tail fitted pockets give a bit of flexibility and therefore reduce derailments in long heavy trains - Bachmann bolsterDs dont have this arrangement and do suffer a bit as a result - so one up for Dapol in sticking with it

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

Thanks for kind comments

 

Yes thats correct - fish tail and swallow tail. Will pin cut down couplings in to cut down pocket by drilling through with 0.6mm drill and inserting wire for additional security - wouldnt want the coupling to come unglued at the head of a 20 wagon train at a key moment in a show.

 

Do find that the fish tail fitted pockets give a bit of flexibility and therefore reduce derailments in long heavy trains - Bachmann bolsterDs dont have this arrangement and do suffer a bit as a result - so one up for Dapol in sticking with it

 

Phil

 

Ah, I see now that you have used both a cut down coupling and a cut down pocket to create your shorter coupling.  The proposed "pin" sounds sensible, certainly for your length of trains.  Interesting info also about the long trains and coupling issues.

 

I think that Dapol could have provided/could provide a one piece moulded coupling with a fish tail, to fit the fish tail shaped pocket, mirroring what you have created.  This would then still seem to be a satisfactory coupling for all users.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

 

Thanks Paul

 

What your photos all show is that as usual wagons were well down the list for application of standardised new liveries. The tare weight at the extreme end can be replicated with CCT's transfers so will go down that road - many thanks for sharing.  

 

The era thing comes up again though! Given these wagons were early 60s build and steam finished here in Sept 66 - although really was last knockings only after Jan 66 - the wagons ran at least as long in the current Dapol livery in the pre TOPs diesel era - with TOPs starting in 73 - rather than in the steam era. Will lose the maintenance panel on some too....

 

So back to the couplings.

 

Have cut down the NEM pocket and coupling tails and changed the couplings for the shortest ones in my spares box which gives us

 

3A0AA92F-11C7-4E59-86B8-01106CC4CD22.jpeg

 

Looks like this at the business end - OK the NEM standards police will be after me for sure!

 

B9E2FA58-DEF3-4374-9762-12165D555244.jpeg

 

 

Back to the originals....

4D4F930E-AD10-4851-88AD-04744368FA7B.jpeg

No reason why the NEM Standards Police would be after you any more than they'd be after Dapol.:jester:

 

As a Kadee user, this looks like another job for the Xurons, followed by a #146 or #149 mounted direct to the chassis. There should be sufficient clearance above the axle for the draft box, once the extension piece for the NEM mount is removed.

 

John

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, 26power said:

 

Ah, I see now that you have used both a cut down coupling and a cut down pocket to create your shorter coupling.  The proposed "pin" sounds sensible, certainly for your length of trains.  Interesting info also about the long trains and coupling issues.

 

I think that Dapol could have provided/could provide a one piece moulded coupling with a fish tail, to fit the fish tail shaped pocket, mirroring what you have created.  This would then still seem to be a satisfactory coupling for all users.

 

Many thanks. Scope for 3D printing perhaps? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Judging by the relative length of the vans, I would say they are either BBE's or BBA (MACAW's) carrying steel billet. It's difficult to tell whether the bogies are GWR style plate frames or David & Lloyd at that distance and angle with the shadow, but looking at the shadow in the middle I would say there's a void in the frame like D & L bogies. They look to short in relation to be BBC or BBD. I know some BBC wagons had D & L bogies later on and many BBD's had them.

Edited by Baby Deltic
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

So havent done much to these for a while - catching up with projects, heres the first with weathering. Thanks for the transfersJohn @cctransuk

D2FD95AB-07EF-4CBA-915A-84BBB65E35D6.jpeg

Edited by Phil Bullock
Photos added
  • Like 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

So havent done much to these for a while - catching up with projects, heres the first with weathering. Thanks for the transfersJohn @cctransuk

D2FD95AB-07EF-4CBA-915A-84BBB65E35D6.jpeg

 

Very nice, Phil - definitely a step-change from the Lima-based models in my collection.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Cheers John. Only another 19 to weather - and then theres the question of loads.... 4" bar , 1mm brass section I reckon but going to need a lot!

Edited by Phil Bullock
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Cheers John. Only another 19 to weather - and then theres the question of loads.... 4" bar , 1mm brass section I reckon but going to need a lot!

Phil,

Any chance of making a resin casting, or a scribed plasticard box, and just using Plastruct square section on the outside? I did this on one of the Cargowaggon flats I built, and it looked OK. Pick out the ends in a selection of primary colours; the ones I remember had red, yellow or blue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Fat Controller said:

Phil,

Any chance of making a resin casting, or a scribed plasticard box, and just using Plastruct square section on the outside? I did this on one of the Cargowaggon flats I built, and it looked OK. Pick out the ends in a selection of primary colours; the ones I remember had red, yellow or blue.

 

Nice thought Brian. The load profile is pretty low - perhaps 3 layers - but working as you suggest might save a lot of material. Wonder if a balsa wood centre for lightness might work.....

 

Were the batch colours wagon load specific or random?

 

Class 45 Llandeilo.jpg

Edited by Phil Bullock
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

 

Nice thought Brian. The load profile is pretty low - perhaps 3 layers - but working as you suggest might save a lot of material. Wonder if a balsa wood centre for lightness might work.....

Class 45 Llandeilo.jpg

Just checked on line, and each bar weighs just over 700 kg, so a load of up to 45 bars could be carried, assuming a wagon capacity of 32t.

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

Just checked on line, and each bar weighs just over 700 kg, so a load of up to 45 bars could be carried, assuming a wagon capacity of 32t.

 

 

Think this is one of the best close ups I have seen courtesy of Brian Rolley @br2975

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_10_2017/post-1599-0-15650500-1508227735_thumb.jpg

 

Reckon theres about 25-30 bars there....

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do scrub up beautifully, these models.

As my modelling pretty much spans the operational life of the BBEs I guess I’ll turn a blind eye to the TOPS codes on the side when necessary. :whistle:

E3C5962F-9A16-4A22-A1BE-F8059C263DE5.jpeg

18E1C73E-BD28-4B7D-AF9F-7091D473A19D.jpeg

89E2CF55-3ACB-4F84-8ACA-F3766544CB42.jpeg

  • Like 3
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.