Jump to content
 

Dapol 142


dave flint
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just had to post on the Dapol FB page and to their credit they did respond rather than delete my post. Unfortunately this was their response:post-6986-0-23765800-1548262073.jpg
They haven't taken anything on board for 9 years and haven't they seen all the Japanese mechanisms or even their own DMU's or the diminutive size of their Terriers chassis.

The 142 has been a long running joke and I think Dapol are trying to have the last laugh.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had to post on the Dapol FB page and to their credit they did respond rather than delete my post. Unfortunately this was their response:attachicon.gifDapol.JPG

They haven't taken anything on board for 9 years and haven't they seen all the Japanese mechanisms or even their own DMU's or the diminutive size of their Terriers chassis.

The 142 has been a long running joke and I think Dapol are trying to have the last laugh.

 

 

 

Compared to their own cl.156, a rigid wheelbase rather than bogie chassis SHOULD be even easier to make low profile. Just look at the KATO "shorty" 4 wheel tram chassis. I gather that KATO chassis does have a bit of a reputation as a fast runner due to the single reduction via the brass worms. But it wouldn't be that tricky to use a slim coreless motor (like recent Farish models but double ended) and add an in-line drive train with further reduction without really going above chassis height at all, let alone intruding into window space. 

 

Basically, they've lost the will to be serious about N gauge, it seems. They've found a new niche in O (less competition, higher prices = higher margins, similar development costs, fewer engineering challenges) and seem to treat the back-catalogue of announced releases in N less than enthusiastically.  

 

I'm also dubious about the amount of in-house experience Dapol actually have - they seem quite open about the CADs coming in "from China". So what exactly is their role in the design? Minimal, it would seem. 

 

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 I gather that KATO chassis does have a bit of a reputation as a fast runner due to the single reduction via the brass worms. 

 

Having seen one in action it would give the Starship Enterprise a run for it's money! 

 

Basically, they've lost the will to be serious about N gauge, it seems. They've found a new niche in O (less competition, higher prices = higher margins, similar development costs, fewer engineering challenges) and seem to treat the back-catalogue of announced releases in N less than enthusiastically.  

 

I'm also dubious about the amount of in-house experience Dapol actually have - they seem quite open about the CADs coming in "from China". So what exactly is their role in the design? Minimal, it would seem. 

 

J

 

Agreed. Dave Jones was always the driving force behind N Gauge at Dapol and since his departure and the linkup with Lionheart, N Gauge has become just part of a range rather than the range, so I suppose it's only natural that there would be a drop off in N Gauge output as people with different priorities & interests take over the reins. But, what I've seen of the 142 so far in the retailer photos and elsewhere shows what I can only describe as a contempt for N Gauge modellers, especially given what was originally promised spec wise in 2010. At least during the similarly extended birth of the Farish Ivatt, Bachmann incorporated improvements into that model such as the coreless motor and switch from tender to loco drive. 

 

I'm just thankful that the likes of RevolutioN have come into play in the past few years, and via them we are seeing great promise from newcomer Sonic Models. People who actually seem to want to deliver the best models possible to the market and not just say 'close enough'. 

 

Tom.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically Dapol have lied about the spec?

 

Taken from their own forum/digest:

 

 

All model features remain the same:

 

Pickup from both axles in both cars

Low profile motor

Dapols unique 'No-Gap' corridor connector

 

The corridor connection is the worst of all. It works fantastically in the 156. No way is a gap like that acceptable. I'm cancelling mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Haha well now I'm quite pleased that Dapol managed to completely ignore every livery that ran in the North West of England (*in the period I model) from the pictures it doesn't look like something that I should have paid over £100 for...

 

If it's as bad as the pictures suggest I hope it's also faulty so it can go back.

 

As a plus though it's great that it can go round 9" curves... (For me and my ridiculous fiddle yard anyway)

 

Meh, I'm old enough now to know I shouldn't get my hopes up, but I was hoping it would at least be the same standard as the 153/156; but I'll see when it turns up.

 

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

So basically Dapol have lied about the spec?

 

Taken from their own forum/digest:

 

 

All model features remain the same:

 

Pickup from both axles in both cars

Low profile motor

Dapols unique 'No-Gap' corridor connector

 

The corridor connection is the worst of all. It works fantastically in the 156. No way is a gap like that acceptable. I'm cancelling mine.

 

 

From the info I can gather:

 

Original spec as per the 2010 catalogue: http://www.ness-st.co.uk/Dapol/Dapol%20Catalogue%202010%20N%20Gauge%20Section.pdf

 

Flywheels:                         TBC - suspect not. 

Super Creep Motor:          Not sure if Dapol are marketing it as this anymore and in any case, supercrap motor would be a better description. 

Directional Lighting:          Yes

Low Friction Mechanism:  Not sure what this was supposed to be. Probably marketing gumph for excessive amounts of grease. 

DCC ready:                       Yes

 

On page 1 of this very thread, additional specs were listed as:

 

Permanently coupled 2 car set:               No

Through wiring:                                        Yes - for pick up only, possibly.

All wheel pickups:                                    Yes

No gap concertina corridor connectors:  Yes - Video evidence seen and appears to be the same system as the Maunsell coaches (so, inaccurate)

1 PCB with a single decoder required:    No, or maybe yes, not even Dapol seem to know. 

 

Low profile mechanism doesn't actually appear to have been listed, although the CAD image on the previous page clearly shows it was at one point designed as such. 

 

Tom. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. I have just had a look at the broadside shots on RMWeb and compared them to the real thing. The proportions are quite distorted, the tumblehome in particular as far too tall and the angle is wrong. See the image below for a crude comparison of the Dapol model vs the real thing.
 

post-887-0-49484800-1548279401.jpg

 

This has a knock on effect in other places as the position of the tumblehome also determines the shape of the "face".

 

I sent Dapol a fairly detailed break-down of the problem alone with annotated drawings back when the first 3D print with the squashed windows was shown. Dapol gave a polite "thank you" but have clearly not done anything to fix the problem. They just stretched the windows to something like the right proportions but left the other issues as they were.

 

I am glad I do not model modern image as this is not what modelers have come to expect from the current generation of models. If anyone could post a face-on shot of the front of the unit, I would be grateful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I reckon someone threw some LEV1 drawings into the mix to come up with some of those errors.

Might be worth bashing when they're sold off around the £80 mark....

NRN pod is too big and wrong, but that tumblehome, that is a big problem.

 

Dave

Edited by Davexoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. I have just had a look at the broadside shots on RMWeb and compared them to the real thing. The proportions are quite distorted, the tumblehome in particular as far too tall and the angle is wrong. See the image below for a crude comparison of the Dapol model vs the real thing.

 

attachicon.gifpacer2.jpg

 

This has a knock on effect in other places as the position of the tumblehome also determines the shape of the "face".

 

I sent Dapol a fairly detailed break-down of the problem alone with annotated drawings back when the first 3D print with the squashed windows was shown. Dapol gave a polite "thank you" but have clearly not done anything to fix the problem. They just stretched the windows to something like the right proportions but left the other issues as they were.

 

I am glad I do not model modern image as this is not what modelers have come to expect from the current generation of models. If anyone could post a face-on shot of the front of the unit, I would be grateful.

The side windows are too high on the Bodyshell to hide the motor & too small.   This was pointed out to Dave Jones when he worked there.  Charliepost-3411-0-67359500-1548280736_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Don't suppose we could convince you to pass yours through the shrink ray Charlie? 

 

 

 

Also, could someone confirm the height of the windows on the prototype please? I thought'd I'd seen a figure on this thread but cannot find the post now. 

 

Edit: Just found the post, 830mm. 

 

Tom.  

Edited by TomE
Link to post
Share on other sites

If having the chip in all models is the only way that model can be financially viable, would you still rather do without, or prefer that nobody gets that model?

 

Just a thought

Les

 

Now that the models are arriving, I'll finally answer that question...

 

Not buying, it really is nowhere near good enough. I'll happily do without, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that. I thought the 56 was disappointing (so much so that I've long since sold both of mine on), but this is in a whole new league...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Well i’ve put my money where my mouth is, and picked up a Regional Railways Tyne & Wear 142021 on my way home. So after a brief play this evening here are my thoughts.

 

Running qualities on DC are very good, low geared and runs very smoothly. The chassis is cast metal block so a decent amount of weight. The gear train probably has taken up more space and raised the height of the motor, which does have flywheels. Mine had no problem hauling a dummy 156 in multiple on the test track. There is also a light bar socket in each car too. One car is powered and one is a dummy. There are electrical pick ups on the dummy and through connected much like a later Hornby Class 142.

 

Lighting is Directional, with the forward running lights set to night running position) i.e. headlight is on the drivers side. But both markers light up. I suspect it might be possible to have the day time headlight operational, as some have done on Farish and Dapol 66s. There is a interior for the cab. Overall the DCC socket corresponds with the doors and former lockable parcel area with side seats.

 

Wheelsets are quite fine, finer than Farish, so on my code 55 test track all is well. I suspect it will run nicely on Code 40 Rail gauged on S&C to N2 standards. It would be interesting to see how one copes with Code 40 2mm association gauge S&C.

 

Outer couplers are a pocket fitment. Fitted out of the box are Shafenburgs, which in 2mm are not far of a BSI coupler. The shank is quite long, but designed for have units in multiple around 9” radius track! Supplied in the box are knuckle couplers and Dapol magnetic couplers. I wonder if Kato produce the Shafenburgs with a short shank? Something to investigate.

 

Within the detail pack there is a plastic section to fit within the corridor connections so there is no day light. This might offer and opportunity to hide a multi-pin connector to drive the lighting from the powered car using one decoder for the more enterprising modeller …? I have wondered about working door warning lights too…

 

For DCC operation within the instructions, Dapol acknowledges two decoders are required to enable the tail and headlights to work correctly. It notes factory fitted DCC models will be so fitted. I do hope so. No mention of space for a sound decoder or speaker. But again I imagine the more enterprising modeller will find a way. It’s possible advantage for the lack of interior!

 

The livery printing is ok, I wish Dapol would use the correct font for TOPS numbers! The Regional Railways name printing could be sharper. However no smoking stickers are on the windows.

 

Overall I pretty happy with it. Yes it’s not perfect. I’d certainly like a few more, and hopefully will be able to do this. Plus future liveries like BR Provincial Blue, Skipper Brown & Cream provincal livery, with two and four leaf doors will be most welcome, although it could be sometime before we see them I suspect!

 

With the 142 you can model all those lovely 80s and 90s rural (and not so rural) stations on low cost base branchlines that survived Beaching but might well have closed had Surpell had his way in 1983. Pacers where design for and managed to save many such branch lines due to their low cost and attractive bright airy interiors compared to run down 1st generation DMUs. Certainly it’s a useful model for us modellers of the North of England railway from the mid 80s to present.

 

As Charlie Petty has indicated, the dimensions of the model may have been compromised (the windows maybe are a tad high, not checked the dimensions, but a standard Leyland National long bay is 1421mm if I recall correctly, and the 142 body uses long Leyland National sections), and few have feedback to Dapol upon this some time ago. I guess in 2019 is not really that excuseable, although I suspect the tooling for this model has been around for a bit. If a little more finishing to cover the mechanism had been considered it would be better. But to me personally it does capture the look of a 142.

 

As a nod to Charlie, I’m also a 4mm modeller, I’m looking forward to the Realtrack 142 especially one in Provincial skipper brown and cream. 4mm really is the place for advanced DCC features at a sort of affordable price. But considering the link to Rapido which Revolution I believe enjoys, shall we say 2mm finescale 142 based on the Realtrack research and tooling would be interesting!

 

However to put some context, price was £119.00, yes a lot of money. However, a Farish 150/2 in BR Provincial Sprinter livery is a few quid light of £150. In conversation with the shop staff, the next run of Farish DMUs, so 101, 108, 150, for a two car set are likely to £200 (eeek), and this is for nothing more than different livery. The DCC sound versions well they suggest a price of £300! I do hope the prices don’t climb for future runs of the 142 in a similar way to Farish has in recent years, which would then start to reflect on value vs short comings of the model. The shop staff said they’ve had no shortage of interest and sold their allocation of 142s they have received. They are now looking to obtain more stock. So if this is the pattern across the country it looks like it should sell out.

 

I know we all don’t like the high prices, but unless we want European (German market) quality models like Marklin, Roco etc, and are prepared to pay European prices, maybe £400-500 per model, there is a compromise to be had? Well that’s a point I’m personally mulling over.

 

As ever these are my personal views, and I hope people respect them, even if they don’t agree with me.

Edited by richierich
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had to post on the Dapol FB page and to their credit they did respond rather than delete my post. Unfortunately this was their response: Dapol.JPG

They haven't taken anything on board for 9 years and haven't they seen all the Japanese mechanisms or even their own DMU's or the diminutive size of their Terriers chassis.

The 142 has been a long running joke and I think Dapol are trying to have the last laugh.

 

I'm no rivet counter but this looks almost comically bad in its inaccuracies - up there with the Poole Farish 56 of 20 years ago.

 

Nine years' wait for utter garbage. What were they THINKING?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hornby got the shape right in 1987 when they first brought out the class 142, it makes you wonder what Dapol where thinking all these years on, they were told the 3d prints had issues with the size of the windows etc, it kind of reminds me of how they got the oo gauge class 150/2 so wrong when they brought that out in 1992, they could of got both these right first time round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Again, not my video but a more in-depth close up of the 142. Thanks must go to Torre Vale for recording it.

 

 

After a closer look I might be able to forgive the lack of interior and the wrong window size. The internal cabling doesn't look great but the video suggests things could be done to make some improvements. Admittedly I've never actually fitted people to my other DMUs so maybe I'm being overly harsh.

Edited by maq1988
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely post on this forum...

 

I have to ask, who here has a perfect layout? A perfect replica of a time and place? I certainly don't.  I've been looking forward to adding this DMU to my collection of Regional Railways DMU's.

 

My Cl142 arrived yesterday, sure I can see a wire and a circuit board when I peer closely.  I'll tidy that when I convert to DCC. Most of the time I'll be looking from at least a metre away, for me it looks good enough and fits into my in-perfect world.

 

I'll be adding a couple more to my collection. 

 

Thank you Dapol for delivering!!

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm no rivet counter but...

The rivets are big enough to count! Yes, the real this is covered in them, but they're barely visible normally. The ones on the Dapol model look big enough to hold a battleship together.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 

Hello all,

 

I suspect that the long gestation period of this model won't have helped.

 

Having a model move from designer to designer will lead to inconsistency and a lack of project "ownership."

 

The present team will have had to make some hard decisions about where to draw the line between accuracy and financial sense.

 

I think criticisms of this model are valid, but in terms of criticising Dapol in general we should also bear in mind that they very recently produced the Class 68 which is IMO a stunning model.

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I think criticisms of this model are valid, but in terms of criticising Dapol in general we should also bear in mind that they very recently produced the Class 68 which is IMO a stunning model.

 

 

Entirely agree Ben, but this is what makes the 142 all the more frustrating. Dapol have proven with the 68 they can produce a model which is up there with the best available in the UK right now. If it hadn't been for the shear scale, audacity and quality of the Pendolino the 68 would have had my vote in the awards. It is, in all aspects, superb. 

 

Sadly the 68 looks like it may be the exception to the rule, as the forthcoming Class 50 looks like it will share some of the same basic shape errors that plague the 142. It doesn't instil confidence that Dapol are taking the N Gauge market seriously anymore or are interested in valid feedback which gives me serious doubts over the BoB/West Country, a model I need several of and really need them to get right! The specs for that are impressive, but then so were the specs for the 142 at the time. 

 

Clearly many people will just be happy they now have a RTR pacer in N Gauge, and despite the issues raised here I'm sure it will do well for Dapol due to it being the only option. But if you model anywhere North of Derby, Wales or Cornwall in the mid 80's & late 2000's it is an essential piece of kit and instead of delivering an accurate representation of the class, we are left with 9 year old flawed tooling which I just find deeply disappointing. 

 

Tom.  

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...