Dapol 142

[ash39]

Yep it looks to have no interior at all in the Hattons images, a bit disappointing.

 

Looking forward to seeing some higher resolution close up images when they start to filter through. Unfortunately as I've got Northern ones on order and with DCC fitted, I'll still be waiting a while for mine. 

[maq1988]

Based on the photos at Hattons I've just cancelled my pre-order for a Northern Spirit version (DCC fitted).

 

A lack of any interior at all seems to be a huge huge oversight, especially as the original specs had it as light-bar ready. How daft would that look?

 

I also await more photos and reviews before committing.

 

Edit: I've got to say that it's a huge disappointment to have a product take so long to get to market to have it fall at the last hurdle, and with a RRP of over £130!

Edited January 22, 2019 by maq1988

[richierich]

NEX18 is a next generation decoder interface or socket. I'm no expert but it looks a lot more elegant than a 6 Pin NEM, and I suspect drives more functionality such as inbuilt speakers etc, as Farish are starting to offer on their diesels.

 

From the photos on Hattons web site, pseronally I find it hard to tell if there is an interior or not. So open minded.

 

Light bar ready would be good, but I'm sure there are other ways to install lighting.

 

It's a good point regarding the price uplift between DC and DCC versions. It does indicated just one decoder, or you get two decoders for twenty quid, which is a bit of a bargain.

 

However it's the only 2mm ready to run Pacer (class 142) model in the game. I'd be surprised if some one like Farish or Revolution Models would have ago at a Class 143/144 Pacer (would be nice!). So unless you're inclined to build up one from a Worsley Works 2mm etched brass body shell. . . .  Now that is a challenge I don't fancy!

Edited January 22, 2019 by richierich

[grahame]

When I spoke to my local shop just after writing the post, they confirmed its a NEX18 socket. Just wondering its a decoder per car or one per set. Hopefully the latter, but I suspect the former.

 

Apparently the pre-release info said 6-pin but someone has checked the model and it is Next18.

 

G.

[richierich]

Looking at the photo on Rails of Sheffield it does look like there is no representation of the interior. But Rails description indicates it’s Light bar ready?!?!

 

The representation of a dot matrix destination display on the regional railways 142 081 is correct for this period. Later on in its career the destination display was changed back to a conventional destination blind, but centrally mounted.

Edited January 23, 2019 by richierich

[TomE]

Looking at the photo on Rails of Sheffield it does look like there is no representation of the interior. But Rails description indicates it’s Light bar ready?!?!

 

Maybe it’s my eye, but the bodyshell seems to have a slight bow up to the roof?

 

The representation of a dot matrix destination display on the regional railways 142 081 is correct for this period. Later on in its career the destination display was changed back to a conventional destination blind, but centrally mounted.

 

I did eventually find a photo of 081 with the dot matrix display, although Dapol's interpretation of it appears massively over sized?

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/95155237@N07/16254859618/

 

Tom.  

[richierich]

I did eventually find a photo of 081 with the dot matrix display, although Dapol's interpretation of it appears massively over sized?

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/95155237@N07/16254859618/

 

Tom.

 

Possibly more over bright and in need of a toning down?

 

The yellow would be more appropriate on the recent 4mm Turbot spoil wagons.

Edited January 23, 2019 by richierich

[TomE]

Looking at the photo of the real thing, the panel appears to be a fairly narrow rectangle in the centre of the panel, where as the Dapol interpretation has it more or less touching the top and bottom edges. 

 

It's interesting to compare the early CAD image below with the actual product. The low profile mechanism has clearly been dropped at some point during the protracted development of this model, and the interior appears to have been sacrificed as a result. 

 

 

Tom.  

[chriswrightmk]

The running abiity wil be important-, how it wil negotiate turn outs and curves and accelerate.

[richierich]

Further to an enquiry with Hattons, the 142 only does require one NEXT18 decoder. There is a through electrical connection between cars.

[richierich]

Looking at the photo of the real thing, the panel appears to be a fairly narrow rectangle in the centre of the panel, where as the Dapol interpretation has it more or less touching the top and bottom edges.

 

It's interesting to compare the early CAD image below with the actual product. The low profile mechanism has clearly been dropped at some point during the protracted development of this model, and the interior appears to have been sacrificed as a result.

 

Pacer.jpg

 

Tom.

I agree it’s a tad over size. But suppose it’s something we kind of expect from Dapol.…

 

I’ll be fascinated to see the drivetrain and electrics in the Model. I guess the interior would be pretty low relief because of the drivetrain, so as the model has developed, it has become something that would look silly?

 

I’m surprised they’ve designed it to run around 9” radius track. This may well have compromised the drive mechanism? It also makes me wonder if the wheel sets articulate like the inner wheelset on the early Hornby 142?

Edited January 23, 2019 by richierich

[TomE]

I'll post some photos once mine arrives!

 

Tom.  

[Gareth Collier]

Some photos have been posted on the NGF FB group, the chassis is very visible and no effort has been made to hide it. IMHO it looks terrible, the old Farish 101 with a single motor bogie was less visible and at least the full length chassis was black. There are wires on show everywhere and there is no attempt at close coupling. After such a long wait, I'm sorry, but it is extremely disappointing and nowhere near the first CAD drawings. Body errors seem to have been ignored and the chassis has taken a large step backwards. Usually a model develops after the initial CAD is released..................

[Hattons Dave]

Further to an enquiry with Hattons, the 142 only does require one NEXT18 decoder. There is a through electrical connection between cars.

 

Hi Rich,

 

Just wanted to follow this up as I believe my colleague has already emailed you back.

 

After having checked closely, the instructions included with the Class 142s do state that TWO decoders are required when running on DCC despite the presence of electrical connections in the inter-car couplings.

 

I hope this clears things up.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[cs233]

I was on the fence with this one although the pictures as already mentioned show the motor very visible. Wires clearly seen. I am not convinced at the look of the unit comparing with the prototype. I am really sorry to say I will not be buying.

[richierich]

Hi Rich,

 

Just wanted to follow this up as I believe my colleague has already emailed you back.

 

After having checked closely, the instructions included with the Class 142s do state that TWO decoders are required when running on DCC despite the presence of electrical connections in the inter-car couplings.

 

I hope this clears things up.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Thanks for the clarification.

 

It would be amazing for an N gauge 2 car DMU to run off one decoder.

[richierich]

If the 142 is that disappointing, because it’s such a small market in 2mm, I cannot see another manufacturer producing a 142 / 143 / 144.

 

Its always the risk in 2mm. If the manufacturer doesn’t do the model justice, your stuck with it.

 

The Dapol 56 is a case in point. The body width Dapol used from my calculations is over handrails, hence a tubby 56. This is same mistake Heljan made with their 4mm 47. Other errors are the cab window represents a Romanian built loco, so totally wrong for a BREL built loco. Plus having the post 96 loadhaul electrical compartment cooling grilles. So pre 96 locos are wrong. However i’d Be surprised if one of the other 2mm manufacturers decided to produce a more accurate 56 (please feel free to have ago!).

 

At least in 4mm chances are another manufacturer might well make an attempt, because there is still sufficient market to make it viable.

Edited January 23, 2019 by richierich

[philiprporter]

Just seen photos of the 142 on FB - it does look poor with wires and circuit board etc clearly visible - not to mention the already discussed issues with shape etc. Considering this has to be one of the longest gestation periods ever for an n-gauge model, its very poor indeed; I had naively thought the length of time from announcement to appearing on the shelves would mean that the many issues already pointed out here and on other forums were being addressed. That obviously hasn't happened and the visible wiring, circuit board etc just isn't acceptable. Big shame and I've cancelled my three pre-orders.

[justin1985]

<conspiracy theory mode>

A deliberately bad model, so that poor sale figures can justify killing off N gauge development at Dapol?

</conspiracy theory mode>

 

More seriously, I can't shake the feeling that since the well publicised staffing changes at Dapol, they seem to lack the understanding of the N gauge market that they used to have (even though the previous regime also produced quite a few howlers).

 

You can sort of imagine people who normally model in O gauge trying to deal with issues with chassis height\interior on the Pacer design, and saying something along the lines of "oh, its only N gauge isn't it, no one will even be able to see whether there is an interior anyway!" can't you? 

 

Justin

[TomE]

It's all the more disappointing because Dapol have had 9 years to get it right.

 

Plenty of people here and elsewhere highlighted concerns with the window sizes & body shape and many contacted Dapol directly, myself included. Despite claims they had re-tooled, that now appears not to be the case. 

 

In September 2012 the specs were listed as: "Permanently coupled 2 car set, through wiring, directional lighting, all wheel pickups, no gap concertina corridor connectors and 1 PCB with a single decoder required" and again it seems much of this is no longer the case. I haven't seen anything from Dapol stating any revised specs (happy to be proven wrong) only that they'd had issues with "destruction testing" and latterly that it has missed it's production slot. To now find that many of the features promised are no longer present makes even more of a joke of the extended development period. 

 

I'm left with the impression that the 142 has been something of a millstone around Dapol's neck for 9 years, and they've tossed it out hoping the N Gauge market would be so grateful to finally have a Pacer at all that they'd be willing to overlook everything that's wrong with it. 

 

Tom.  

 

 

[philiprporter]

It's all the more disappointing because Dapol have had 9 years to get it right.

 

Plenty of people here and elsewhere highlighted concerns with the window sizes & body shape and many contacted Dapol directly, myself included. Despite claims they had re-tooled, that now appears not to be the case. 

 

In September 2012 the specs were listed as: "Permanently coupled 2 car set, through wiring, directional lighting, all wheel pickups, no gap concertina corridor connectors and 1 PCB with a single decoder required" and again it seems much of this is no longer the case. I haven't seen anything from Dapol stating any revised specs (happy to be proven wrong) only that they'd had issues with "destruction testing" and latterly that it has missed it's production slot. To now find that many of the features promised are no longer present makes even more of a joke of the extended development period. 

 

I'm left with the impression that the 142 has been something of a millstone around Dapol's neck for 9 years, and they've tossed it out hoping the N Gauge market would be so grateful to finally have a Pacer at all that they'd be willing to overlook everything that's wrong with it. 

 

Tom.  

 

Agree 100% with that Tom.

[Widnes Model Centre]

Hi Rich,

 

Just wanted to follow this up as I believe my colleague has already emailed you back.

 

After having checked closely, the instructions included with the Class 142s do state that TWO decoders are required when running on DCC despite the presence of electrical connections in the inter-car couplings.

 

I hope this clears things up.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

Hi Dave,

 

I have also read the instructions and agree, but I decided to check with Dapol. They told me it only needed one Next18 Decoder. "It says two in the instructions", "No it only needs one"

 

So not surprised that advice given was one. I have sold one today with 2  x Decoders, but with a "bring one back when you actually find out who is right, Dapol or err Dapol"

[Vonzack]

This may be a senior moment so bear with me, but I'm certain one of the reasons for the window heights was because of the chassis and interior fitment, ie if the windows went lower down you would see the chassis block. Didn't all of the EP's and livery samples we saw have interior's?

 

Looking at the photo's on Hattons site and FB, looks like only pickups run through the couplings, so directional lighting would need a second decoder. I think you can make out a circuit board at each end, but difficult to say without a shot of both vehicles with the tops off.

 

Also, Looks to be a big gap between the vehicles too when coupled.

 

Hopefully we'll get some better shots soon and it'll be clearer what we're getting.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Vonzack

[maq1988]

Well said TomE. I suspect you are right with it being a millstone around Dapol's neck. They'd gone too far to cancel, and too far to correct anything.

 

 

This would appear to be an absolute joke of a release from Dapol - it's not the standard that I'd expect from any manufacturer in 2019.

 

Surely something could have been done to make the inner chassis profile lower, and at least have the makings of an interior. It's a two-unit DMU, it won't need the haulage capacity of a 9F, so a thinner (albeit lighter) chassis should have been an option.

 

I don't need a Pacer, I wanted one. However I'll be voting with my wallet. Dapol. Poor show.

[Widnes Model Centre]

This may be helpful, or not.