Dapol Fruit D Van - Poor Quality

[RobMG]

On ‎09‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 23:17, wasdavetheroad said:

I find the Dapol wagons perfectly acceptable for how I run my layout and I have over 100 of them but very few Bachmann or Hornby. I don't notice the brake levers/blocks at a couple of feet on a moving train and the other main issues can be fixed. Reasonably priced packs of 20 wheelsets allows replacement of wobbly wheels and there are fixes for the floppy couplers and loose coupling hooks. They are reasonably priced at about half the cost of a Bachmann or Hornby model and even cheaper if you buy the unpainted version and paint them yourself. We are lucky that Dapol produce them as there is very little available from Bachmann/Hornby for the 1950's and early 60's. If I wanted to have a 30 x 16 ton coal wagon train tough cos they are not available. My Dapols chassis is too long so the train is 5 inches longer than it should be but I don't notice that. Maybe I find the suspension of disbelief easier than some and that helps in our miniature world full of compromises.

I think if I had incredible eyesight and could spot the anomilies from a normal viewing distance, I might worry more.  I do spend a lot of time modifying and detailing wagons, only to find I can't actually see what I have achieved. So basically I am generally happy to overlook a couple of mm extra length or brakes both sides when it should be one side etc etc.   

[Wickham Green]

Maybe both of you should've gone to Specsavers !!?!

[The Johnster]

My eyesight is not perfect by a long chalk, but I am aware of the shortcomings of moulded handbrake levers and brake blocks out of alignment with the wheel treads from normal viewing distance; perhaps my side lighting of the layout is showing things up a bit more than it might if the lighting was overhead or behind the stock from the viewing/operating position.  I cannot run 30 wagon 16tonner coal trains, there's no room on my little BLT, but of the 15 RTR Bachmanns that I have all have the correct wheelbase, which Hornby and Dapol cannot provide, all run perfectly and all have NEM couplers that operate properly; there are 4 different diagrams represented, and no duplicate numbers.  

 

A 30 wagon train of correct wheelbase RTR steel 16tonners is entirely feasible, as transfers are available to eliminate duplicate numbers.  My 15 are part of a 23 wagon fleet which includes Hornby 21tonners, Baccy and Oxford xpos, and a 'French' cupboard door 16tonner.  3 Hornby LNER 21tonners with older couplings and moulded handbrake levers are high on the replacement with something decent, but if with Dapols they won't be on the Dapol chassis!

 

My only Dapol vehicle remains the Fruit D, and it continues to derail and give coupling problems; it'll be binned as soon as Parkside replacement enters service.  I use Peco code 100 with minimum 'medium' 30" radius, carefully laid and no other vehicle gives these sort of running problems, so it has been demoted to siding lurker, something I have no space or time for.  

 

To reiterate, I won't be buying any more Dapol wagons unless they up their game, which is a pity as I want a couple of the GW 21tonners.  They are not, IMHO, worth the trouble.  I may have a go at rewheeling the Fruit D and fitting Parkside coupling mounts, though, to see if that brings it in to line a bit.

[gwrrob]

Have you checked the wheel back to backs as I have four of them that run through code 75 medium radius pointwork without problems.

[Allegheny1600]

I had a fair few Dapol wagons of the "classic" generation, rather than the newer very modern outline wagons.

What should have been my favourites was a rake of Grampus wagons - had they been worth running. Yes, I checked the B2B's on all of them!

They were, quite simply, crap!

How a company can manage to keep selling such "things", I don't know. The wheels were crude and probably should have been replaced, the chassis was crude and the whole thing just crabbed along the track, far worse than my initial Airfix mineral wagon built out of square when I was about 11 y.o.

I found the bodies acceptable but I simply couldn't use them.

The mineral wagons and vans were all just the same so in the end, I got rid of them all.

[spikey]

22 hours ago, The Johnster said:

... I won't be buying any more Dapol wagons unless they up their game ...

 

Me neither.  But judging by the attitude of the chap I spoke to on the phone last year when I had the temerity to ask about replacements for dodgy carriage wheels, that won't be any time soon. 

[D9020 Nimbus]

It occurs to me that the Fruit D is a long wheelbase wagon. You don't say what radius your point are but 

I'm wondering if that could be part of the problem.

I have set of five weathered Dapol grain wagons—the old H.D. tooling (I assume) for the body plus a Dapol chassis with NEM coupler boxes—and haven't had any issues, in my case on Fleischmann Profi-Track, including a double slip. I do have a Fruit D somewhere, but can't remember how well it runs.

[31A]

3 hours ago, Allegheny1600 said:

I had a fair few Dapol wagons of the "classic" generation, rather than the newer very modern outline wagons.

What should have been my favourites was a rake of Grampus wagons - had they been worth running. Yes, I checked the B2B's on all of them!

They were, quite simply, crap!

How a company can manage to keep selling such "things", I don't know. The wheels were crude and probably should have been replaced, the chassis was crude and the whole thing just crabbed along the track, far worse than my initial Airfix mineral wagon built out of square when I was about 11 y.o.

I found the bodies acceptable but I simply couldn't use them.

The mineral wagons and vans were all just the same so in the end, I got rid of them all.

 

I made the Dapol Grampus bodies useable (and better looking) by making new underframes using the sprues that Parkside sell separately, from their own Grampus kit - I believe Peco still sell them.  They're quite cheap and it wasn't difficult to do; I think I used different wheels as well.  But yes, it's a valid point!

[wasdavetheroad]

On ‎13‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 14:55, Wickham Green said:

Maybe both of you should've gone to Specsavers !!?!

No thanks for the useless advice. I had cataract surgery 3 weeks ago  and my modelling is curtailed for about 3 months. . I will have to go through the whole procedure again for the other eye. My original point still applies, I am glad Dapol still sell their 'cheap and nasty' wagons.

[BWsTrains]

On 08/02/2019 at 01:08, chuffinghell said:

 

Instead of gluing I firstly put a peco fibre washer shim between the NEM pocket and the body where it mounts although this removed the ability for the coupling to move from side to side and may cause an issue on 2nd radius curves entering the fiddle yard.

 

Secondly I simply bent the nem pocket assembly upwards so when in the relaxed position it sits level and retains the self centering function, this seems to work a treat

Agreed that either of your methods will work, up to a point, but as I understand it the NEM socket is "out of spec" with these fixes as it'll sit too low. Came across this when planning to switch to Kadees. My solution was to carefully shave the excess off the screw boss so the NEM fitting is snug BUT NOT TIGHT. Side to side remains fine and the socket is now at a better height.

 

Previously my MkII couplings were always drooping low on Dapols, after treatment they're spot on.

 

Then again the overall quality is poor IMO, I bought some weathered wagons and the arms on 2 of the MkII inserts just broke off when under load.

 

Colin

[The Johnster]

Just had a squiz at Rails' advert for the Dapol made SECR van they've commissioned.  Now this is more like it, and if Dapol could manufacture wagons to this standard more often I'd reconsider buying them.  Or even upgrading the chassis; the old body toolings might not be up to the very best of modern standards but they are by no means bad.  The Fruit D has all sorts of problems with the planking and width, though, and needs a complete renewal IMHO.

[Wickham Green]

1 minute ago, The Johnster said:

Just had a squiz at Rails' advert for the Dapol made SECR van they've commissioned.  Now this is more like it, and if Dapol could manufacture wagons to this standard more often I'd reconsider buying them.  Or even upgrading the chassis; the old body toolings might not be up to the very best of modern standards but they are by no means bad.  The Fruit D has all sorts of problems with the planking and width, though, and needs a complete renewal IMHO.

Unfortunately, Dapol are NOT 'making' these vans for Rails : their only involvement - as I understand it - is in painting and lettering them.

[The Johnster]

Oh.

 

 Bu**er.  

 

Back to replacing my Fruit D with a Parkside, then...

[Wickham Green]

.......... but you never know what Rails might announce next .................... it's bound to be something somebody's just stated a kit of !

[The Johnster]

Or that I've just finished building...

[Steamport Southport]

I ordered a couple of the Rails vans. If they were something available as a kit then I wouldn't have bothered. Plenty of prototypes they could make without standing on the toes of the current kit manufacturers. Many were made by defunct manufacturers that we'll probably never see again.

 

As an example look at all the ones here that are NLA (no longer available). That's just the GWR wagons. It's a similar situation with the other companies.

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/kits4wagons.html

 

I would also reckon that a Fruit D would come in at quite a bit more than the £30 or so they are charging for the SECR van.

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

Bachmann's SR PLV/PMV comes in at just shy of £40, and may be considered a comparable vehicle.  A Parkside Fruit D is much cheaper than this (as is a Parky PLV), but arguably carries less underframe detail than blue or red box RTR Fruit D would, doesn't have sprung buffers, and of course must be built, painted, transfers added, and finished off, all stages which give you plenty of opportunity to mess it up.  I also factor in replacement buffers for Parkside kits, as the plastic ones supplied are easily broken off and variable in quality.  

 

So, it'd be pay your money and take your choice is someone brought out a current standard Fruit D.  Our moans about the Dapol offering, which is not expensive by modern standards, must be considered in the light of it being a very old tooling indeed, dating back to Hornby Dublo and with the chassis worked up a bit by Dap.  My current thinking is that I am going to build a Parkside and retire my Dapol, but I am a bit nervous of flimsy steps on the Parkside and may recycle these from the Dapol.

 

As for RTR manufacturers standing on kit makers' toes, my instinct is to agree with you.  But this is a competitive capitalist market and the RTR people owe it to their shareholders (which may will include my pension funds) to chase profits, maintain share value, and pay out dividends.  If a big RTR manufacturer were to bring out a GW 5-plank open in a variety of liveries it would no doubt affect sales of the Parkside kit (which would still no doubt compete on price, and probably interior detail), but it would be a good seller and fair trading.  Many kit manufacturers have suffered from RTR 'predation', and current RTR is very good indeed in terms of accuracy and detail, and superb in terms of finish, if expensive; Parkside and Ratio are parts of the Peco empire, a fairly big hitter in it's own right that can stand on it's own two trodden on feet and fight it's corner well enough.

 

But we have lost a lot of diversity with the downfall of so many of the small 'niche' kit manufacturers.  Not all of this is down to RTR competition, mind, some were effectively cottage industries that were probably never going to survive beyond the point at which their owners retired or cost effectiveness was lost.  It is my belief that the 3D printing industry and it's commissioners will be taking quite a bit of this slack up in future, and this is beginning to happen, but we are still in the lean years kit wise and some big names have gone. 

 

Whitemetal and (especially) etched brass kits can deliver very high quality models, but are time consuming and require a level of skill and ability to build, paint, and finish.  To some, of course, this in itself is the attraction, but these sort of kits are to be honest beyond the ability of probably the majority of OOB modellers and are more like scratch aids.  I can manage a Comet coach, but only do so because the prototype is necessary to my layout's location and period and would prefer to spend about the same amount of money on an RTR that could be in service this evening.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy building and finishing kits, but my main purpose is realistic operation, and the building process is a means to an end for me, not the end in itself, satisfying and fun though it is. 

 

Many kits were developed before the advent of current quality RTR, and because they are in packs or flattish boxes are cheaper to store than bulky RTR boxes, so can be kept profitably available even when an RTR item has flooded the market.  I wonder how many mk1s Comet sell these days, but they are still easily available.  Kits, plastic or brass, are cheap to develop and market compared to RTR and most have been redacted a very long time ago.  This has ensured the survival of some of the more mainstream items despite better RTR being available, though it wasn't enough to save Kirk...

 

I would contend that Parkside and Airfix/Dapol/Kitmaster plastic kits are within the capacity of most modellers (I built a Kitmaster RU Restaurant Car successfully when I was 10, and I'm about as c*ck handed as it gets), but Ratios are a bit more intricate.  But painting and finishing them to RTR standards is beyond most of us, even if we can make a reasonable job of it; current RTR is about as perfect as it is rational to expect in this respect!

 

There's another point to be made in the kit vs RTR debate, related to skill and ability, and it's an important one.  A faulty or poorly built/finished RTR item can be taken back to the shop or sent to the supplier and exchanged for a good one, and a good shop will take it out of the box for you to examine before you part with your beer vouchers.  Try that with a kit you've messed up...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gwrrob]

I have several Bachmann SR PLV's as well as Dapol's fruit D and Hornby GWR siphon G and SR van C . The difference in quality between them is unbelievable. As you can pick up the PLV for 25 sheets if you look, the Bachmann model is well worth the money, as is the Hornby van C another comparable model. The Hornby siphon is an overpriced cash cow. At less than £20 I think that Dapol's offering is only 'just' about worth the money from my experience.

[The Johnster]

When I got back into the hobby about 3 years ago, a Hornby Southern Van C in BR crimson was my first new rolling stock purchase; I was astonished by the improvement in the standard of volume produced RTR. over the quarter century I'd been out of the game, and was sniffy about the Wrenn Fruit D back then; admittedly Dap's underframe is not as bad as Wrenn's HD derivate was.  Parkside has to be the way forward here, and I've build enough of these now to know that they are a safe pair of hands.  

 

Purchases shortly following were a Baccy LNER vanfit in BR livery and a PMV/PLV, which also blew me away.  Of course, I rapidly became accustomed to this sort of RTR quality, and as blase as the rest of us, but the initial culture shock was not at all unpleasant...