Jump to content

Dapol 142


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, TomE said:

Hmm. I'd love a provincial example having grown up with them, but can I overlook the shape issues and lack of interior......:dontknow:

 

Tom. 

 

Is the lack of interior more or less apparent in those pictures compared with the examples in my drawer that you cannot see through due to black lumpiness and red wiring? I bought them because I too grew up with them (kind of - it was more likely to be a a 143 or 144 I think) and I have not looked closely enough to see the shape issues. 

 

7 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I sort of fancy one too in Provincial, then I would need a 150/1 and a 150/2 as well and there is the 156 and 158 - it sort of creeps on doesn't it and it's stretching 1976 a bit.

 

I already have all of those except the 158, which is of no interest. I will probably pass on these but I would like something appropriate for SYPTE Metro livery along similar lines. That is if someone would like to take it on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Davexoc said:

And shouldn't that Manchester PTE be orange and brown, with a brown roof?

 

Indeed it should.

 

Original 142 Pacer

 

image_1336.jpg.4ccf52cd28000c1e18711ab4e678bc33.jpg

The brown on the lower bodyside of the GMPTE sample also looks far too dark. Hopefully Dapol are across that and the roof. 

 

The more I look at the front of the model the more I think of Bruce Forsyth. Too much chin. 

 

Tom. 

 

Edited by TomE
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Davexoc said:

The beige and light blue on the BR liveried ones accentuate the lack of tumbleholme, making the lower panels look too big.

And shouldn't that Manchester PTE be orange and brown, with a brown roof?

I suppose they are only painted samples.......


Please do give Dapol feedback. They can be contacted in various ways - Facebook, email, Dapol Digest etc.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:


Please do give Dapol feedback. They can be contacted in various ways - Facebook, email, Dapol Digest etc.

I've just gone to the Dapol Digest, and the login page "comes up with a message of "invalid URL"

Anyone else have this issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Stuart A said:

I've just gone to the Dapol Digest, and the login page "comes up with a message of "invalid URL"

Anyone else have this issue?

 

If they are then someone needs to email Joel to let him know his website isn't working so he can ask his provider to do something about it.  

 

Les

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
30 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

 

If they are then someone needs to email Joel to let him know his website isn't working so he can ask his provider to do something about it.  

 

Les

I've mentionned it on their facebook page.  Is Joel's email in the public domain?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
39 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

 

If they are then someone needs to email Joel to let him know his website isn't working so he can ask his provider to do something about it.  

 

Les

I've mentionned it on their facebook page.  Is Joel's email in the public domain?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TomE said:

 

Indeed it should.

 

Original 142 Pacer

 

image_1336.jpg.4ccf52cd28000c1e18711ab4e678bc33.jpg

The brown on the lower bodyside of the GMPTE sample also looks far too dark. Hopefully Dapol are across that and the roof. 

 

The more I look at the front of the model the more I think of Bruce Forsyth. Too much chin. 

 

Tom. 

 

 

@TomE You know what, seeing that photo and the model in GMPTE makes me completely agree with you, there's definitely too much gap between the lights and the bottom of the front panel, also the brown strip along the Tumblehome is too wide and yet the windows look fine, so the whole body must be too tall.

 

Shame as I was waiting for the Provincial one, so I might have to think a bit longer.....

 

Cheers

 

Neal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, nickb4141 said:

Colours on the Chocolate & Cream one look a bit off - cream looks vet pale. Hopefully these are first samples and can be changed as have two of these on order! 

 

also the roof looks black and should be brown 

 

John 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi feedback  emailed yesterday and these are early factory renditions so hopefully reviews will pick up.   Sadly it is known the body is flawed - the tumblehome is on the body unlike the 4mm version where it is part of the chassis - a legacy issue with the design. As a result not enough turn in  on the tumblehome panel - you have to be able to mould it and have it survive, yet allow chassis fit...  The over chin on the front as so well described is more of the same issue.  In model form it is not that noticeable and folk run happily - perhaps molehill and mountain however nice it would have been to get it right at least it got to market and we can play.      

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, Robert Shrives said:

In model form it is not that noticeable and folk run happily - perhaps molehill and mountain however nice it would have been to get it right at least it got to market and we can play.

 

Combined with the windows being pushed too high up, for me it totally destroys the look of the model. It's more like a caricature of the real thing rather than a scale representation of the prototype. But anyway, it is what it is and if I happen to see a Provincial one in the bargain basket I'll probably pick one up. 

 

Tom.  

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Got a response from Joel on facebook

 

Quote

Joel Dapol

Stuart Allen

 yes thanks we spotted the roof issue. The brown has not photographed too well in the flesh looks right and is from the reference on the official colour scheme. Your feedback is appreciated.

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The windows aren't tall enough - the tops of them are in roughly the right place but they don't come far enough down the body sides.

 

Having grown up with them I've really wanted a GMPTE orange/brown class 142 since starting modelling in N some twenty years ago. I think I've going to have to buy the Realtrack one in OO gauge and sit further away from it...

 

I do wonder why Dapol don't just send Railmatch or Phoenix paint samples to the factories and ask them to colour match.

 

Steven B.

Edited by Steven B
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steven B said:

The windows aren't tall enough - the tops of them are in roughly the right place but they don't come far enough down the body sides.

 

 

 

They didn't on the earlier ones but enough people decided either they could live with it or just didn't care to make it viable.....

 

Les

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can live with the windows, they look close enough to my eyes, but those light clusters - just so wrong.  But wasn't expecting that to change from the first run, and will still pick a couple of each of the GMPTE and Provincials up.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Had there been a better alternative I'd have bought it.

 

As it is, if you want a 142 in N you've got the choice of the Dapol model, the Worsley Works scratch building aid or a complete scratch build.

 

I model the Greater Manchester in late BR period so guess what option I went for... (as well as crossing my fingers that we one day get a more accurate one, but I suspect that will be unlikely)

 

 

Steven B.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the Worsley Works body a decade or so ago, but I couldn't find a suitable chassis at the time (I think I used a very bodged Tomytec chassis which started out with bogies.)  I wonder if the Dapol chassis could be made to fit the Worsley body?  I probably still have it somewhere.

 

Still means Dapol get my money though!

Edited by Carl
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly, the Provincial and Skipper liveries seem to hide the worst aspects of the inaccurate bodysides. 

 

It really is a shame that Dapol made such a mess of this, especially when they have produced outstanding models like the 68.

 

I wonder if Revolution or a small supplier might have another go at a Pacer  - or maybe it would now be far too risky? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Quote

It really is a shame that Dapol made such a mess of this, especially when they have produced outstanding models like the 68.

 

I kinda wonder if this is down to Dapol using multiple factories and the one that made the 68 is excellent while the one making the Pacer isn't quite as a good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kaput said:

 

I kinda wonder if this is down to Dapol using multiple factories and the one that made the 68 is excellent while the one making the Pacer isn't quite as a good.

I don't think it's down to multiple factories but rather who drew up the CAD and who signed it off.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon somewhere along the way somebody got confused by the whole Pacer family. What we appear to have is neither 142 nor 141, but an amalgamation of the two, sort of a tubby 141 with it's slab sides, but with the cab of a 142 on the front. Class 141.5..?.. 

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

 

I wonder if Revolution or a small supplier might have another go at a Pacer  - or maybe it would now be far too risky? 

 

its a very long shot but I cant really see it unless they had got in first to grab pre orders...  End of the day the model sells well and fills the market need

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Davexoc said:

I reckon somewhere along the way somebody got confused by the whole Pacer family. What we appear to have is neither 142 nor 141, but an amalgamation of the two, sort of a tubby 141 with it's slab sides, but with the cab of a 142 on the front. Class 141.5..?.. 

Yes it does look much more like a 141 from the front. It's a shame that Dapol didn't make a better job of this, especially given the massive gestation time (wasn't it something like 7 years?). Must have sold well enough though given this second run. 

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.