RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted March 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2018 The valance looks odd enough that I suspect it's been 'thrown together' for the EP while they sort out doing it properly. I hope so, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad McCann Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Valance issue aside; it’s encouraging that they have got the crucial windscreen appearance just right to my eye. It’s still early days so hopefully the front valance error is not beyond correcting. After all, observations like this are the reason that manufacturers throw early EP images out to the public. Any manufacturer should now be fully aware of the critical, well-trained eyes that exist within the modelling community, so Dapol (I hope) have released this image in the full knowledge that critical observation will be received. I expect this is a 3D printed sample so capable of manipulation before doing a further prototype. Highlighted issue notwithstanding, this prototype shows promise. D4. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iak Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 After waiting for this beastie for so long, one hopes that Dapol do pay attention. It would be infuriating to see this error manifested in the production model... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimbus Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 The valance looks odd enough that I suspect it's been 'thrown together' for the EP while they sort out doing it properly. I hope so, anyway. I think this may be an un-painted diecast surface we're looking at. Which in turn suggests the whole underframe casting has been tooled to match the inadequate body turnunder The Nim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) As you say Nimbus it looks like a raw casting finish and in reality perhaps isn't that bad - again, the biggest issue is the lack of a definite change from the side to the turnunder - I certainly can't see a crisp transition like this just above the top of the cab step;D6121 by Hugh Llewelyn, on FlickrCome on Dapol you can do better than that. Don't make silly mistakes like Oxford Rail seem rather capable of! Edited March 2, 2018 by Bob Reid 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spackz Posted March 2, 2018 Author Share Posted March 2, 2018 They've had a lot of experts on this and only had a meeting recently with these experts. So hopefully this is already in the process of rectification. I don't think the photo gives it a full justification and doesn't allow you to fully pick out all the details. But other than the lower valance it looks spot on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Expurts - a bit late in the day when that's an EP on the go. It doesn't take an expert to spot the blatantly obvious. There can't be too many ex-NBL designers on the go plus I thought (according to DJM when he was there) they'd found some of the original drawings. It looks like they are attempting to re-use the Class 22 chassis design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted March 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2018 As you say Nimbus it looks like a raw casting finish and in reality perhaps isn't that bad - again, the biggest issue is the lack of a definite change from the side to the turnunder - I certainly can't see a crisp transition like this just above the top of the cab step; D6121 by Hugh Llewelyn, on Flickr Come on Dapol you can do better than that. Don't make silly mistakes like Oxford Rail seem rather capable of! 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: 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Now that would be a pity Clive! As 34C pointed out Hornby came close to it and anyone whose altered one of those can spot that lovely transition that gives the buffer beam sides their signature (for want of a better word) look.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26power Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Thought there might be some value in this linked thread on here? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107181-Hornby-class-29-–-ex-works/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signaller69 Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Here's a clear shot of the demarcation between the Rail Blue & Rail Warning Yellow courtesy of Mike Mather Rail Blue. by Mike Mather, on Flickr At least one (D6107) had the yellow carried up right to the top edge too, as per the green with FYE livery. http://dieselimagegallery.com/detail/470-D8118;D6107;class-200;200;20118;Green;small-yellow-warning-panels;GSY;passenger;Larbert-station;Larbert;D8118-1-S;3165;Jim-Binnie.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted March 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2018 Oh.. So were looking for a 44 with a 17 or a 44 with a 33, in BR ownership... 44 with a 33 is not a problem. 33s regularly worked the Dunstable branch and 44s will have passed through Luton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signaller69 Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) Agree with the turn-under and bufferbeam valence points raised. Having a join in the valence seems a bad idea to me due to the multitude of angles going on in that area. That said, it looks pretty good in all other areas to my eye. I wonder how far behind is the class 29 with its different bodyside* and roof details? Edit: * "bodyside" substituted for "grille", viz class 21 engine room window (one per side) being replaced with a grille, with another added below it on the 29s. Edited March 2, 2018 by Signaller69 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) I think this is a surprise. unless i`ve missed this pic before. Taken from Pinterest. Is the loco one of the small number painted in two-tone green for the bodysides? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_01_2018/post-18572-0-11641700-1516387840.jpg Edited March 2, 2018 by Pandora Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckymucklebackit Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Is the loco one of the small number painted in two-tone green for the bodysides? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_01_2018/post-18572-0-11641700-1516387840.jpg I think all the locos that were converted to class 29 had the two tone green Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew F Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 There looks to be enough meat on the valance of the ep to take a sanding block to. I'd be thinking about adding parts of the valance 'hanging out' for the authentic look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted March 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2018 44 with a 33 is not a problem. 33s regularly worked the Dunstable branch and 44s will have passed through Luton. I know Bob will get upset for carrying on with the off topic conversation. Class 44s did not work south of Wellingborough. As a trainspotter from Bedford, I had to travel to Wellingborough or Kettering to see them. Now 33s and 27s together at Luton..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Less of that Clive I've already had to ask someone to pick up the toy's off the pavement this week.... p.s.It wouldn't be so bad if (a) It actually had something to do with the topic and (b) I knew what the hell you were going on about! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spackz Posted March 2, 2018 Author Share Posted March 2, 2018 It's strange how this image hasn't been officially released on Dapol website of FB page. I wonder if it's because they aren't overly happy with it yet, but was leaked anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
37081LochLong Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 It's strange how this image hasn't been officially released on Dapol website of FB page. I wonder if it's because they aren't overly happy with it yet, but was leaked anyway. It's on Dapols front page on the moving image slide Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signaller69 Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) Is the loco one of the small number painted in two-tone green for the bodysides? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_01_2018/post-18572-0-11641700-1516387840.jpg It's D6123, the first class 29 conversion to be carried out, which uniquely retained disc headcodes vice 4-character headcode boxes. The 29's received two tone green whereas the 21's were plain green as Jim notes above. Although I'm not sure but D6107 may have received BR blue FYE upon new conversion to a 29, which may explain the full height FYE compared to others which were repainted later? Edit: It is a particularly useful photo for examining an ex-works Class 29 roof, such photos are rare. It is interesting that the roof panels are different colours. As this was the first conversion it would also be interesting to know if the others had exactly the same roof layout or not. Edited March 4, 2018 by Signaller69 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 ... 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... Should it prove necessary, the method for a 'fix' will be dependent on factors we cannot see such as the wall thickness of the moulding, and width, construction and material choices of the mechanism within. It would not be a trivial job, because for a start it is very unlikely that the body wall thickness will be anywhere near enough for the full depth of the bevelled turnunder. All hypothetical, let's see if Dapol can make all this moot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimbus Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) 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: As 34C says, plus, did Dapol muse "Hmm, now the battery box looks too far in. Better widen it to match the valance, so noone will notice"? The Nim Edited March 2, 2018 by Nimbus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteskitchen Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 I think all the locos that were converted to class 29 had the two tone green Jim D6107 and 8 were painted blue with full yellows wen they were refurbished IIRC. All the rest were two tone green. I'm not sure if any of the t.t. green ones were released with full yellows though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spackz Posted March 2, 2018 Author Share Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) 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. It's on Dapols front page on the moving image slide Edited March 2, 2018 by spackz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now