Jump to content
 

Dapol Class 21/29


spackz
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

One of the guys on the DEMU forum has questioned the absence the crease line halfway up the body side. He also thinks the surrounds around the grilles may be to narrow and stick out too far. Anyone else got any thoughts on these issues? I agree with him.

 

 

Is the raised beading along the lower body side also too wide?

 

Geoff Endacott

Well spotted Geoff.

 

To quote another DEMU member

After such a lengthy gestation, it would be frustrating to see the production models having issues.

 

Edited by Clive Mortimore
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the guys on the DEMU forum has questioned the absence the crease line halfway up the body side. He also thinks the surrounds around the grilles may be to narrow and stick out too far. Anyone else got any thoughts on these issues? I agree with him.

 

 

Well spotted Geoff.

 

To quote another DEMU member

 

It certainly looks from the EP pic that the 'crease' is absent. It's a definite line on the prototype.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the guys on the DEMU forum has questioned the absence the crease line halfway up the body side. He also thinks the surrounds around the grilles may be to narrow and stick out too far. Anyone else got any thoughts on these issues? I agree with him.

 That's why I shall go to Ally Pally in the hope of seeing the EP.

 

The mid height horizontal crease line in the bodyside is hinted at in the applied etched grille. Whether it is present sufficiently in the bodyside, I certainly cannot gauge from the screen image. Needs eyes on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder we have a very good resource on the 21/29 here on RMweb:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/47894-sad-eyed-people-the-class-21-and-29-livery-resource/?fromsearch=1

 

Hopefully being an EP it will be revised so the following, based on the EP image shown above will be moot. Like many others I want to see this model "right" so this is not criticism, just observation.

 

In addition to previous comments, another major ommission appears to be the prominent windscreen surrounds which play a big part in capturing the "face". There is no rivet detail on the EP either, whilst admittedly this is very subtle on the real thing, it is there and is something Hornby did a good job with imho. The etched grille is a welcome touch but what is going on with the extra horizontal "bars" across it? There should be only one, at waist height level a fraction higher than the bodyside crease (the crease is just a slight angle change, with a row of rivets along it; it does maybe look a little too subtle on the EP but may be more noticable if/when Dapol add the rivet detail).

 

Body/Bogie gap looks a little excessive. Admittedly, clearances on the real thing are tiny (check the gap on the real thing between the bufferbeam valence and the sandboxes for instance), this is another area that can make or break a model. Presumably the model has been designed to work on first radius track?

 

I will sign up and add these comments to the Dapol site shortly if no-one else has done so.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Just a reminder we have a very good resource on the 21/29 here on RMweb:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/47894-sad-eyed-people-the-class-21-and-29-livery-resource/?fromsearch=1

 

Hopefully being an EP it will be revised so the following, based on the EP image shown above will be moot. Like many others I want to see this model "right" so this is not criticism, just observation.

 

In addition to previous comments, another major ommission appears to be the prominent windscreen surrounds which play a big part in capturing the "face". There is no rivet detail on the EP either, whilst admittedly this is very subtle on the real thing, it is there and is something Hornby did a good job with imho. The etched grille is a welcome touch but what is going on with the extra horizontal "bars" across it? There should be only one, at waist height level a fraction higher than the bodyside crease (the crease is just a slight angle change, with a row of rivets along it; it does maybe look a little too subtle on the EP but may be more noticable if/when Dapol add the rivet detail).

 

Body/Bogie gap looks a little excessive. Admittedly, clearances on the real thing are tiny (check the gap on the real thing between the bufferbeam valence and the sandboxes for instance), this is another area that can make or break a model. Presumably the model has been designed to work on first radius track?

 

I will sign up and add these comments to the Dapol site shortly if no-one else has done so.

 

Early EPs often don't show rivet detail as it tends to be added after the rest of the tooling has been got up to finished detail standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a reply on the Digest stating they will start work on the second EP soon and will be adjusting the turn under along with some other details

 

post 25 - https://digest.Dapol.co.uk/forum/main-forum/class-21-29/793-still-looking-for-news/page2

 

 

"The lower valance 'turn under' is angled however this will be increased more in line with the prototype"

 

I'd rather it was in line with, rather than 'more in line with,' if I'm honest.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers mate.

 

Problem when using a phone to browse. Looks like the issue has been brought up on the Digest page already. Just awaiting a response.

 

Edit: just noticed it's you Loch long.

 

 

Glad its not just me that had that phone problem then. When I clicked the link several posts back it loaded the D.D. page then closed my browser down. Worked ok when I googled the page though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that a significant turn under could create a problem when fitting the body shell to the chassis - although I don't think that the turn under was as pronounced on the Class 22 this may be why the valances on the Dapol Class 22 were included in a detailing pack, to be fitted by the purchaser? The Class 22s also had a mid body 'crease' which is captured on the Dapol version, so I doubt that will be missing here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that a significant turn under could create a problem when fitting the body shell to the chassis - although I don't think that the turn under was as pronounced on the Class 22 this may be why the valances on the Dapol Class 22 were included in a detailing pack, to be fitted by the purchaser? The Class 22s also had a mid body 'crease' which is captured on the Dapol version, so I doubt that will be missing here.

 

The corner valance intersection and solebar profile are completely different on the two classes.  The 21 is far more marked, the 22 flatter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that a significant turn under could create a problem when fitting the body shell to the chassis ...

 There's no such problem. The width available within the underside body opening with the bevelled turn under fully represented will still be plentifui to admit a twin bogie drive line with a good fat motor. It might prevent the possibility of making the body clip on to the mechanism; but screw attachment to internally moulded blocks is one suitable proven alternative.

 

There is a challenge in reproducing the external form accurately, it may be that a two piece body shell  will be necessary.

 

A single piece body moulding would pose a mould release problem, but there are several potential solutions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bob

 

Having a second look I can see what you mean, there is no turnunder like on the real thing along the whole body side.

 

A well just means getting file out and shaping it, then repainting the bottom part of the body......on a loco that will be in the £150 price range. :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:

 

I really must get a decoder in the Hornby one I did some years ago and replace the damaged radiator grill etch. I might end up feeling a little smug

Link to post
Share on other sites

The corner valance intersection and solebar profile are completely different on the two classes.  The 21 is far more marked, the 22 flatter.

 

Correct - more pronounced

 There's no such problem. The width available within the underside body opening with the bevelled turn under fully represented will still be plentifui to admit a twin bogie drive line with a good fat motor. It might prevent the possibility of making the body clip on to the mechanism; but screw attachment to internally moulded blocks is one suitable proven alternative.

 

There is a challenge in reproducing the external form accurately, it may be that a two piece body shell  will be necessary.

 

A single piece body moulding would pose a mould release problem, but there are several potential solutions

 

A bespoke chassis then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

UnPainted samples below.

 

I understand release is next year, this is a first EP.

 

Numbers have been decided but we’re not elaborated, I did point out the potential issues with choosing D6121 / D6122 which they indicated wasn’t one of the chosen ones.

post-20773-0-49501100-1522004523_thumb.jpeg

post-20773-0-61889300-1522004537_thumb.jpeg

post-20773-0-29224700-1522004549_thumb.jpeg

Edited by adb968008
  • 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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...