Jump to content

spackz

Dapol Class 21/29

Recommended Posts

The most important thing to me is that we now have excellent up to date models of both types so anyone wanting to model the GN or GE in the late 50s and early 60s is fully catered for diesel loco wise. Same for the SCR with the new Class 24/1 also coming out.

 

The Class 21’s have been a long time coming and have finally filled the irritating gap for me. It’s a shame they didn’t do any of the Hornsey or Stratford ones. I know the first ones had cast cooler grilles but they were changed very quickly anyway.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very happy with my Dapol class 21 so far; it seems slow a slow and reliable (unlike the prototype) runner. It would be great if the 3rd batch of 21's delivered to 61A Kittybrewster with a recess for a tablet catcher would be in a future release from them. Bachmann tooled their class 20's to allow for Scottish variants-with larger windows too, so does anyone know if Dapol have made their tooling flexible enough to allow for this?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paulbb said:

Very happy with my Dapol class 21 so far; it seems slow a slow and reliable (unlike the prototype) runner. It would be great if the 3rd batch of 21's delivered to 61A Kittybrewster with a recess for a tablet catcher would be in a future release from them. Bachmann tooled their class 20's to allow for Scottish variants-with larger windows too, so does anyone know if Dapol have made their tooling flexible enough to allow for this?

I suppose it would depend on how many separate dies make up the whole tool and whether they could be used interchangeably without having to retool the whole body. Naturally there are cab-side differences for the token catcher recess and different windows to mould, although they are separate anyway. If it means just making new body side mould tools, maybe, but if it involves a whole new tool? That’s very expensive. They may well have anticipated doing the ‘Scottish’ ones and made the tooling with interchangeable sections to allow for this.

Edited by Baby Deltic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only 21s I'm interested in are the Kittybrewster examples, so no 21s for me unless these are done. Still looking forward to the 29s, though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Baby Deltic said:

 

The Class 21’s have been a long time coming and have finally filled the irritating gap for me. It’s a shame they didn’t do any of the Hornsey or Stratford ones. I know the first ones had cast cooler grilles but they were changed very quickly anyway.


What were the differences in the Hornsby/Stratford ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Downer said:


What were the differences in the Hornsby/Stratford ones?

The numbers mainly. D6100-9 were based at Hornsey to work on the GN out of KX. D6110-19 Stratford. The two plain green ones they have done are both Ipswich loco’s D6120-37.

 

I suppose you could renumber some but its a lot of aggro. The first Pilot Scheme batch allocated to Hornsey did have different style cooler group grilles with two cast aluminium parts but these were changed fairly quickly to improve cooling as these locomotives were prone to overheating and shutting down in service.

Edited by Baby Deltic
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Baby Deltic said:

The numbers mainly. D6100-9 were based at Hornsey to work on the GN out of KX. D6110-19 Stratford. The two plain green ones they have done are both Ipswich loco’s D6120-37.

 

I suppose you could renumber some but its a lot of aggro. The first Pilot Scheme batch allocated to Hornsey did have different style cooler group grilles with two cast aluminium parts but these were changed fairly quickly to improve cooling as these locomotives were prone to overheating and shutting down in service.

Would it be fair to say that any 21 with a SYP would have made the journey north? I’m referring to D6116 in the current batch on offer.

 

Cheers,

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, davknigh said:

Would it be fair to say that any 21 with a SYP would have made the journey north? I’m referring to D6116 in the current batch on offer.

 

Cheers,

 

David

They all would have made the journey north, but I don't recall any going SYP until after the transfer...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.9c39e6d1cac99bb61b0dc05096dae250.pngNot quite sure that the front is right. The lower marker lights should all be in line with the centre line of the "sausages". The centre marker lights should be nearer the centre line, so the discs are centred. The small square panel on the right hand door-plate should be across to the right to match. The top disc should be higher, so the top rim is above the lip. See attached snipping from the web.

 

There is also a side window on the No2 end which is also slightly out of place. 

 

 

cl29 3.jpg

cl 29 2.jpg

Edited by [email protected]
adding in a pic
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be camera angle looking at the relationship between the head-code marker lights and the horn grilles. They do look a bit low as does the top one. I would check a few pictures though because they might have altered them during production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assure you they're too low: I've been sitting looking at the model and lots and lots of photos over Christmas: but haven't yet considered whether the lights are too low, or the "sausages" are in the wrong place/wrongly sized. Have a look at an additional pic of my model that I've now uploaded.

They're also shifted a little far to the left (centre two). I'm not posting more proper pics of the real thing for copyright reasons, but take a look here for a pic of 6123:  (you'll need to click to see the images)

 

Additionally one of the body side windows at the No2 end is a fraction out, but I can live with that.  I'm not complaining about the grilles/rain-strip/different windscreen wiper positions as those were modifications on the real thing, and that is called modelling. Roll on replacement grill etches, microstrip, and a repaint. 

NBL works plates were a little fuzzy, but as I've got etchings, I'm not worried about a little modelling.

The 65A shed plate was also "eccentric" - again a little modelling can cure that. 

 

On my loco there's a weird "splat" on the outside of the large radiator grille, - not too noticeable, but looks like the plastic re-melted a little after being cast. Hope mine was a one-off.

 

And I can only hope the Cl 29 version is more to my taste for the WHL.

[email protected]

Edited by [email protected]
more information and link
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/12/2019 at 21:08, Phil Bullock said:

IIRC D603 had a replacement cab fabricated from steel 

So it didn't use the spare aluminium one which lurked in A Shop at Swindon?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

So it didn't use the spare aluminium one which lurked in A Shop at Swindon?

The one for D605 the phantom Eagle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now coming up two weeks with a decent amount of running time accrued, and well pleased with it overall.

 

It's a lovely runner, creamy smooth and now so quiet that the sound of the wheels on the rails are all there is to be heard. I concur on the minor detail errors already identified, but these are way less significant in my view than the body side glazing which is plain ugly. I'll see how that looks with a mist of external filth obscuring it; if the effect is thus 'disappeared' then all is well. The key character features of the cab front windows with extremely fine posts, and the angles of the body side panelling are well done. Robustness of exterior detail has been faultless, way better for example than my very much liked Heljan Baby Deltics which have showered the track with small bogie detail.

 

Having decided to standardise on Kadee body mounted through the bufferbeam for passenger traction, there's some surgery in prospect. Can I neatly enlarge the drawhook hole so that an NEM mounting Kadee will just clip in? Or will the screw/tapping securing the hinged NEM pocket be of use in this modification? I don't know yet, and don't anticipate finding out for a month or three.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/12/2019 at 21:11, The Stationmaster said:

So it didn't use the spare aluminium one which lurked in A Shop at Swindon?

 

If I have it right Mike she was sent to NBL for repair - and as you say the spare cab was at Swindon. Did they talk to each other?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/01/2020 at 14:16, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

Having decided to standardise on Kadee body mounted through the bufferbeam for passenger traction, there's some surgery in prospect. Can I neatly enlarge the drawhook hole so that an NEM mounting Kadee will just clip in? Or will the screw/tapping securing the hinged NEM pocket be of use in this modification? I don't know yet, and don't anticipate finding out for a month or three.

Hi,

Due to the nature of the NEM Kadees, the draw hook hole is too high to mount one. Body mount Kadees would need to be screwed on more or less level with the bottom of the bufferbeam, rather than through it, but be aware this may cause problems if you have any sharp or reverse curves due to limited coupling side play when body mounted. Due to the buffers they would have to stick out a fair way too so I think you'd need a longer version of the No.5 style for that approach. And if drilling for a screw, bare in mind any wiring / lighting components present in the nose which could be damaged (I'm not familiar with the Dapol set up). If mounting Kadee couplers at 4mm scale bufferbeam "prototype" height, I'm not sure the trip pins will activate easily either. 

 

Is there a reason you don't wish to use the NEM boxes already fitted?

 

I have found even bogie mounted NEM boxes with Kadees can be used in conjunction with bufferbeam detailing on my Heljan 26/27s on "Crinan", providing curves are reasonably gentle (ie not less than Peco medium radius points), albeit with slight compromise on the Vac & steam pipe positions.

 

ATB,

Martyn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Signaller69 said:

...Is there a reason you don't wish to use the NEM boxes already fitted?...

The answer to that is that they weren't fitted to the prototype!

 

I am at mid-project point on the whole vexing 'autocouplers for OO' issue.

 

Based on experience to date, my coaching stock trains which are generally operated as fixed end sets are getting body mounted Kadee on the set ends. What I have discovered is that I can cheerfully ignore Kadee's positioning prescription, and mount Kadees where couplers should go, in the drawbar of 4mm stock, and - crucial bit this - given proper care in consistent position, and despite being much higher above railtop, operation of the Kadees by Kadee track magnets is actually more reliable when used in this way. (No random uncouples if there is a slight bump just as a pair of couplers are above a permanent magnet.) The Kadee looks very well nestling under the Pullman gangway faceplate, just where it should be.

 

Kadees on passenger locos don't look too bad body mounted through the bufferbeam, and all other end detailing can be fitted. (If some keen inventing type can devise an equally efficient autocoupler which visually resembles the screwlink coupling, then bring it to market. The Dingham has been tried, close, but no cigar...)

 

The NEM pocket on RTR stock is very useful in many ways. Within coach stock sets Roco's 'rigid bar' coupler is used to optimally operate the close coupling mechanisms; and for my several hundred wagons dominated by Bachmann's productions, the coupler pockets are retained, much modified (so no longer NEM conforming) to improve performance with Bach's miniature tension lock.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The answer to that is that they weren't fitted to the prototype!

 

The Kadee looks very well nestling under the Pullman gangway faceplate, just where it should be.

Aahh, I didn't appreciate you were going for the scale height approach.

 

In which case I think I would be tempted to try a screw coupling hook fitted to the loco, with a piece of brass wire soldered to the bottom of it, sticking out a couple of mm from the front of the hook and bent upward in an L shape, which would engage the knuckle of the coach Kadee. Not sure how practical it would be, but it would look less obtrusive and the auto coupling and uncoupling by magnet should still work?

 

Just a thought anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Signaller69 said:

... I think I would be tempted to try a screw coupling hook fitted to the loco, with a piece of brass wire soldered to the bottom of it, sticking out a couple of mm from the front of the hook and bent upward in an L shape, which would engage the knuckle of the coach Kadee. Not sure how practical it would be, but it would look less obtrusive and the auto coupling and uncoupling by magnet should still work?

Tried variations on this theme, and no go. (I am no great shakes at small mechanism design!) Simplest to just use the Kadee heads.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/12/2019 at 21:46, Baby Deltic said:

The were all transferred in 1960 before yellow warning panels were introduced.


The introduction of yellow panels was from mid 1962.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the Dapol Digest is running again, I have used the contact form to ask whether an assembly/spares diagram might be made available, possibly as a download. It's the one deficit compared to competing products, in what is overall a good item.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prompt reply received (within minutes, but I had a heap of other high priority mail to work through!) no assembly/spares diagram available for this model.

  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Prompt reply received (within minutes, but I had a heap of other high priority mail to work through!) no assembly/spares diagram available for this model.

How odd!

Share this post


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.