Jump to content
 

Locomotion & Rails of Sheffield announce SE&CR D Class


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Steam here! said:

Hi there, has anyone had any opportunitunities to measure the Dapol D class?

Length of the loco in either cm or mm = buffer to buffer (from the front to the back)?

 

Appreciate it may/may not be possible due to situation of coronavirus.

Dapol may answer you if you message them /comment on their facebook page. But no one else has access to it as the model has been in a class case everytime it's been seen publically. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Straightforward. The NRM website gives, for the preserved example, length over buffers as 57 ft (probably a bit of rounding there), so the model will be 228 mm over buffers - or add a millimetre or two more, depending on how you set the engine / tender coupling to cope with your minimum radius. 

Its going to have a fixed coupling because its meant to feature their new snap together electrical connection coupling.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, autocoach said:

First I have heard of the  new  Dapol snap together electrical connection coupling.  Any other information on this development?

Looking back, that was the wrong phrase to use, cant remember where I saw the picture of it now.

 

As I remember it, it was a ball and socket joint as the physical connection with either 2 or 4 contacts on a board that mated with contacts on the tender for pickups or a speaker. It was all mounted with a kinematic style mount to allow the loco/tender to open up slightly on curves and be close coupled on straight track.

 

Edit: that was what they planned anyway.

Edited by Pre Grouping fan
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
14 hours ago, autocoach said:

First I have heard of the  new  Dapol snap together electrical connection coupling.  Any other information on this development?

If you read throuhgh this thread you will find out  - from AY's video taken at the launch presentation.  To save you having to look for it I've done that for you and you will find it on this page, the bit about the loco/tender coupling is c.6 minutes in.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/148319-locomotion-rails-of-sheffield-announce-secr-d-class/page/7/

 

Edited by The Stationmaster
correct trypo
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I don’t know how I missed that but thanks Andy and to Mike for linking to it :)  I ordered the SECR one and may well have the Southern one too if I have a bit of spare budget amongst all the other releases due! 
I do hope the coupling mechanism works as well as the idea looks and hallelujah we finally have a UK model that’s put the treble speaker in the smokebox with the more bass oriented one in the tender! That’s a huge step in thinking I’ve talked about many times and delighted to see a manufacturer use such a well thought out dcc setup, this would be wonderful if taken as a standard style configuration to aim for :) 

I also hope this leads to more of the elegant Victorian 4-4-0’s getting a similar treatment. One I’m really looking forward to after the quality of the B4. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 07/06/2020 at 02:30, The Stationmaster said:

If you read throuhgh this thread you will find out  - from AY's video taken at the launch presentation.  To save you having to look for it I've done that for you and you will find it on this page, the bit about the loco/tender coupling is c.6 minutes in.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/148319-locomotion-rails-of-sheffield-announce-secr-d-class/page/7/

 

Thank you for the reminder. It was a while back.  I really like the idea of the smokebox DCC decoder location. Didn't the now infamous DJM introduce this to 4 mm on his BWT. My North American modeling side could use such innovation.  Unfortunately aside from Bachmann USA and Rapido, nobody is producing RTR small North American steam outline.  (Dapol wouldn't care to take a flyer and make an SP C-9 2-8-0? Only came in black with two styles light grey lettering and had simple Stephenson valve gear.  Could help UK balance of payments.)

Edited by autocoach
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, autocoach said:

I really like the idea of the smokebox DCC decoder location. Didn't the now infamous DJM introduce this to 4 mm on his BWT. 

Well the door gave access but thats about the only similarity, the decoder was plugged in by wires then jammed in at an angle. The D has the sliding tray with room for a speaker designed in rather than trying to jam it all in the smokebox past the magnets. It wasn’t easy in the Beattie ;) 

Edited by PaulRhB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, autocoach said:

Thank you for the reminder. It was a while back.  I really like the idea of the smokebox DCC decoder location. Didn't the now infamous DJM introduce this to 4 mm 

YES & NO he was still at Dapol when it was done on the Kernow well tank

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mozzer models said:

YES & NO he was still at Dapol when it was done on the Kernow well tank

 

Bad news for anyone who bought the IP to that "design cue" from the liquidator then ..... !

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

  • RMweb Gold
On 06/06/2020 at 20:23, autocoach said:

First I have heard of the  new  Dapol snap together electrical connection coupling.  Any other information on this development?

I think its the same one used on the 63xx

 

I handled that at Warley last year, dead simple fitting, and has the pivot either side so its a close coupling but also handles corners.

 

works nice, but caution it looked delicate... will have to see what it looks like “in service”.

Edited by adb968008
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 07/06/2020 at 10:46, PaulRhB said:

I also hope this leads to more of the elegant Victorian 4-4-0’s getting a similar treatment. 

 

No elegant Victorian 4-4-0 has yet appeared or been proposed RTR so far as I'm aware - the closest one gets is the rebuilt LSWR T9 of 1912 onwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

No elegant Victorian 4-4-0 has yet appeared or been proposed RTR so far as I'm aware - the closest one gets is the rebuilt LSWR T9 of 1912 onwards.

 

A little closer, just missing the Victorian era in fact, is the Drummond K10 of 1901-1902, which was produced recently by OO Works.

 

It is to be hoped that the technical development achieved by Dapol's designer will, indeed, be capitalised upon with other locos. Back into the 1890s is the way to go!   

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/06/2020 at 18:55, autocoach said:

Thank you for the reminder. It was a while back.  I really like the idea of the smokebox DCC decoder location. Didn't the now infamous DJM introduce this to 4 mm on his BWT. My North American modeling side could use such innovation.  Unfortunately aside from Bachmann USA and Rapido, nobody is producing RTR small North American steam outline.  (Dapol wouldn't care to take a flyer and make an SP C-9 2-8-0? Only came in black with two styles light grey lettering and had simple Stephenson valve gear.  Could help UK balance of payments.)

Amen on the C9  and an Alco SP  S6 diesel while they are at it .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
26 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

No elegant Victorian 4-4-0 has yet appeared or been proposed RTR so far as I'm aware - 


No hence ;) 

On 07/06/2020 at 10:46, PaulRhB said:

hope this leads to more

 

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

11 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

It would be good to see an Adams T3 follow on after the D class. Or even the SECR 01 which Bachmann or Hornby appear to be ignoring after the C/H was released

 

I'd love a T3. Of all the LSWR 4-4-0s, that would be the one I'd choose.  Mind you, I'd settle for a T9 in as built condition, but Hornby has ignored and effectively precluded that possibility.

 

It will be interesting to see if we go forward from the Wainwright Classes, or backwards to Stirling and Kirtley. I would, of course, prefer the latter!

 

However, apparently there were other railway companies, outside the south of England, so we'll see!

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

However, apparently there were other railway companies, outside the south of England, so we'll see!

 

But, as a general rule, their 19th century 4-4-0s didn't survive into the 1950s or preservation*, even in rebuilt form. The major exception I can think of is the Wilson Worsdell Classes M1 / Q / R. Personally, I'd be looking for the original compound version, Class M. 

 

*Which appears to be the governing criterion for viability of a RTR locomotive model.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
42 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

Or even the SECR 01 which Bachmann or Hornby appear to be ignoring after the C/H was released

 

I dare say an F1 might be a possibility but I suspect that the feeling is that with there already being a Chatham 0-6-0, another one wouldn't sell. Of course, personally, I'd like to see an F and an O!

 

BTW just to be clear, when I said:  

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

No elegant Victorian 4-4-0 has yet appeared or been proposed RTR so far as I'm aware 

I was snarkily picking up on:  

On 07/06/2020 at 10:46, PaulRhB said:

I also hope this leads to more of the elegant Victorian 4-4-0’s getting a similar treatment. 

[My emphasis].

A. Pedant.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

.... It will be interesting to see if we go forward from the Wainwright Classes, or backwards to Stirling and Kirtley. I would, of course, prefer the latter! .........

.... my personal preference would be the other way and an 'E' would be a relatively simple re-hash of the 'D' - though commercially a duplication ! ............ jumping forward in time I'm still amazed that a certain well known manufacturer never resurrected their 'L1' in any ( Railroad ) form - presumably the tooling's gone ; it would be a fairly simple re- hash to backdate it to an 'L'.

( Earlier ? ...... 'O1', 'F1', 'B1' yes please ! ............................. and while I'm compiling my wishlist .................. )

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But, as a general rule, their 19th century 4-4-0s didn't survive into the 1950s or preservation*, even in rebuilt form. The major exception I can think of is the Wilson Worsdell Classes M1 / Q / R. Personally, I'd be looking for the original compound version, Class M. 

 

*Which appears to be the governing criterion for viability of a RTR locomotive model.

 

Drivers for RTR have included:

 

- BR service

- Preservation/National Collection

- Replica or new build recreation

 

These are not hard and fast rules. 

 

I hope soon to see some pre-Grouping designs not supported by any of the above crutches. After all, it's starting (just) to happen with rolling stock.

 

9 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

.... my personal preference would be the other way and an 'E' would be a relatively simple re-hash of the 'D' - though commercially a duplication ! ............ jumping forward in time I'm still amazed that a certain well known manufacturer never resurrected their 'L1' in any ( Railroad ) form - presumably the tooling's gone ; it would be a fairly simple re- hash to backdate it to an 'L'.

( Earlier ? ...... 'O1', 'F1', 'B1' yes please ! ............................. and while I'm compiling my wishlist .................. )

 

No doubt the majority, though IMHO, the less interesting, view!

 

But I wouldn't object!

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

  • RMweb Gold

Don't forget that in the context not so much of rails (but it matters) but more particularly of the NRM/Locomotion any subsequent model would have to be something which is in the National Collection to achieve the best marketing opportunities.  that is where the D scores - apart from its longevity in traffic which is also an important commercial factor.  Which for a 19th century 4=4-0 takes us straight to the beautiful NER M1 4-4-0 with the only commercial shortcoming that none survived into BR ownership.

 

In many respects it could be a logical future step for the Locomotion/Rails partnership, I hope.

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

9 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Don't forget that in the context not so much of rails (but it matters) but more particularly of the NRM/Locomotion any subsequent model would have to be something which is in the National Collection to achieve the best marketing opportunities.  that is where the D scores - apart from its longevity in traffic which is also an important commercial factor.  Which for a 19th century 4=4-0 takes us straight to the beautiful NER M1 4-4-0 with the only commercial shortcoming that none survived into BR ownership.

 

In many respects it could be a logical future step for the Locomotion/Rails partnership, I hope.

 

Well, a couple of Qs made it as far as BR numbers, and what's a clerestory between friends, but the survivors were the youngest class, the Rs, which held on to 1957. 

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎07‎/‎06‎/‎2020 at 10:46, PaulRhB said:

...I also hope this leads to more of the elegant Victorian 4-4-0’s getting a similar treatment...

...and 0-6-0 and yet others.

 

Remember the publicity for the Hattons generic 4 and 6 wheel coaches, featured both the D class before it was announced, and the LNWR Jumbo 2-4-0...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

...and 0-6-0 and yet others.

 

Remember the publicity for the Hattons generic 4 and 6 wheel coaches, featured both the D class before it was announced, and the LNWR Jumbo 2-4-0...

 

 

Strange you should mention that ...   ...  A certain LNWR 2-4-0 would I think be almost as welcome as an NER M1

  • Agree 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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...