Elvinley Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 That's hilarious! How did they not notice?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomag Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I suspect that the photos on the Hattons website may be putting some people off. I know they were fitted with double-chimneys but I had no idea they were so chunky. http://www.ehattons....tockDetail.aspx Hatton's are spoilsports and have replace the photos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Having now seen the pictures on Hattons it's finally become clear what's makes this loco look wrong - something has been bugging me with it. The cylinders are way, way too large (vertically) probably because their underside is incorrectly shaped. They drop down far too low giving the whole front end a very heavy sagging look. Looking at pictures it's clear that the cylinders on the real locos stop well above the centre of the bogie wheel axle, and curve notably round on their underside. Dapol's are straight up and down, and come much lower - nearly down to the height of the axle on the bogie. Worse, I do wonder if the front valance under the buffers may not then be the right shape to match the cylinders. Compare http://www.freefoto.com/preview/809-14-4874/LNER-Class-A4-4498-Sir-Nigel-Gresley with http://www.ehattons.com/47706/Dapol_Model_Railways_ND128B_A4_class_steam_locomotive_and_tender_60017_Silver_Fox_in_BR_lined_green_with_ear/StockDetail.aspx I think they should be modifiable (though it will accentuate the valve gear being low which may force a mod on that too), but if the front end is wrong that could be a deal breaker. Cheers, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Mc Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Hi I think they should be modifiable (though it will accentuate the valve gear being low which may force a mod on that too), but if the front end is wrong that could be a deal breaker. Well to be fair here for you and some others it may be and I respect that. One the other hand this A4 is the second highest requested loco I have ever had for the addition of sound with 11 people who have already paid a deposit and I assume will forward their locos to me in due course. I am not drumming up any business far from that, just making a point as my quota is completely filled. Even the Farish A1 didnt get close but to be fair it was bad timing and I knocked lots back. I guess their are a fair few modellers out there who are like me as long as it looks the part and runs, thats great. I think it looks fantastic and I certainly will build up a nice fleet of these. Time and time again I have seen errors made based on photos. Cheers Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Well to be fair here for you and some others it may be and I respect that. I've spent a lot of time detailing Farish A4s (see tha avatar!!), so perhaps it stands out to me more. But the more I look and compare the more it looks wrong, as does the front end. In this respect the Farish one is better. Cheers, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I've spent a lot of time detailing Farish A4s (see tha avatar!!), Cheers, Alan In that case I assume that you spotted that the on the other side of Silver Link (driver's side) the electrification flash was BEHIND the curve of the lining (on the green)..... I can't find a pic of the fireman's side with the flashes applied. BTW Wild Swan had the electrification flash one side in front of the curve, the other behind, and the flashes on the firebox were at different heights and not opposite each other. With a wonky number 2 on the driver's cabside in one two-year period of its late-crest existance. Omitting the flashes altogether seems the best option, particularly as it appears from photos no two A4s had all six in the same place. When we get to the A3s, Lemberg's electrification flashes were different on the two sides of the loco as applied, and two of the ones on the driver's side facing away from the shedmaster's office were removed by "enthusiasts" while it was standing pilot at Darlington (as were flashes from Kenilworth and William Whitelaw). One of those on the fireman's side may have gone the same way. Again a very good reason for omitting them. 60017's cabside numbers were close together as on the model in November 1954, though they MAY have been wider in 1953 in the "Elizabethan" run on the film. By the late fifties they werre wider spaced again, and unevenly spaced by 1961. All the very best Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think you're right Al, definitely in terms of the cylinders (and the height of the curve of the valances?) but I'm afraid the Farish model just doesn't nail that head on, complex curvature of the smokebox that the Dapol model does. In N gauge, and with the extreme closeups we've been privvy to, it does look "odd" in that 3/4 view on to some extent, but in one's hands the model is sublime. I think sideways on, the error is entirely forgivable as the proportions suddenly look acceptable once more. I wonder whether this error is actually forced by the necessity of the valve gear - Farish's being much more crude whereas this one is finer, but cramped into an incredibly small space (and probably not helped by the position of the leading bogie either). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think you're right Al, definitely in terms of the cylinders (and the height of the curve of the valances?) but I'm afraid the Farish model just doesn't nail that head on, complex curvature of the smokebox that the Dapol model does. I don't think so to be honest. The one thing that *is* good about the Farish model is the nose shape. It's excellent. Detailing brings this out IMHO: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/16064-w1quick2jpg/ (ok, a W1, but still the same nose!). I wonder whether this error is actually forced by the necessity of the valve gear - Farish's being much more crude whereas this one is finer, but cramped into an incredibly small space (and probably not helped by the position of the leading bogie either). In this day and age that's no excuse - the Dapol valve gear isn't as good as that on the Farish B1 and A1, so could be better. Even the Farish cylinders are not as large. Cheers, Alan In that case I assume that you spotted that the on the other side of Silver Link (driver's side) the electrification flash was BEHIND the curve of the lining (on the green)..... I can't find a pic of the fireman's side with the flashes applied. I don't see this has much relevance to the cylinders and front streamlining being wrong.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 P.s. On another board a member has shown roughly how out it all is - and also confirmed my worst fears that the front end is all wrong. http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=4107.45 Cheers, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 P.s. On another board a member has shown roughly how out it all is - and also confirmed my worst fears that the front end is all wrong. http://www.ngaugefor...p?topic=4107.45 Cheers, Alan Have to be honest Alan, I don't think the lines he has drawn on the Dapol photograph accurately reflect where the valances should be on an A4 - and the Bittern comparison photograph renders his argument rather moot in my opinion. The running plate and accordingly, the cab is a tad too high - and I think the other chap on the forum in your link has it right when he says the "peak" of the running plate's curve, as I would call it, is in the wrong place, thereby making the cylinder casing rise too high, too quickly, as it approaches the rear of the locomotive - but as you have stated, this could be down to using A3 cylinders as a standard component. I think it's also worth pointing out that the slide bar is actually set too low on the model, in relation to the driving wheels. It should be above the centre line of the driving wheels, not in line with it. EDIT: But I just want to clarify as I'm aware this is reaching "picking apart" levels - I don't think this detracts from the overall look of the model myself. Just one man's opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It needs more careful measurement, but the cylinders to the eye are definitely wrong, as is the front end (which matches the cylinders). So I think to first order the lines drawn are fairly close to being accurate. Whilst many may not care (and each to their own), to me the model does not have the character of the A4, largely as a result of this, so to me it's not picking apart. There's little point in buying if it can't capture the absolutely key features of the front nose curve. A real, real shame. For £99 I think I'll be waiting until prices drop given the work that'll be needed to make it better. Glad my Farish A4s are all going well and I didn't sell them! Cheers, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreamnos Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 The valances on the "real thing" as best as I can tell are integrated around the cylinders. In other words, the bottom half-radius of the cylinders forms part of the valance. On the Dapol model, in Andy's photos its very clear that the cylinders are a completely separate parts and the valances are covers that are placed over the cylinders. I am guessing here (and I stress this is a guess) that Dapol have elected to do this to so they can use the cylinders and valve gear from its new A3 for its A4 as well, therefore saving on having to make new tools specific for the A4 and amortizing the costs to make the cylinders and valve gear over two models instead of just one. I think Alan is right - the valance on the model over the cylinders looks too deep from top to bottom. That bugs me less though than how the valance slips over the cylinders rather than being better integrated together. My biggest quibble about the model is the dorky way the rear bogie is pinned onto the bottom of the chassis - I actually think the clunkly old Farish model looks better in that regard. I still think the Dapol model is a very impressive model and the front bogie and driving wheels are a huge improvement over the Farish model. I own a BachFar Mallard in Express Blue w/early emblem and a such I honestly don't know if I will spring for one of these new ones, nice as they look. There are so many new models coming out these days that if you're like me and have a sizeable collection of older but adequate (and easy to service!) models, it's hard to justify spending the money to replace those on a like-for-like basis. My purchases of new locos have mostly been limited to those which have never before been offered as RTR models. I'll tell you though, this is a fantastic time for someone new to the hobby who hasn't previously made a large investment in stock. The models now being offered in N gauge are leaps and bounds better detailed than in years past. Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It needs more careful measurement, but the cylinders to the eye are definitely wrong, as is the front end (which matches the cylinders). So I think to first order the lines drawn are fairly close to being accurate. Whilst many may not care (and each to their own), to me the model does not have the character of the A4, largely as a result of this, so to me it's not picking apart. There's little point in buying if it can't capture the absolutely key features of the front nose curve. A real, real shame. For £99 I think I'll be waiting until prices drop given the work that'll be needed to make it better. Glad my Farish A4s are all going well and I didn't sell them! Cheers, Alan Hi Alan I have not always been one to champion Dapol models, but having received my "Wild Swan" today issues raised here notwithstanding it is a vastly superior model to the old Farish one (And so it should be!). The jury is out as regards performance, till it runs in, but it is smooth and quiet enough. Feeling the tender sides after running,, it does run a bit warm, no doubt something to watch. Does it eclipse the Farish A1? No, not for me, the A1 still has the feel of a better quality product all round, but it is a lot closer. Regards Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanem44 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think when shrinking anything down to 2mm size, compromises must be made. The Dapol A4 looks fine to me. I am not a historian, nor do I constantly analyze the A4. I will be happy when I finally recieve mine in the mail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ste234 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think in Andy's photos it looks just fine, however in the Hattons photos something does look odd, apart from the side on shot of SIlver Fox, which looks fine! Hopefully if they get the full valances on it it will look even better! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I have not always been one to champion Dapol models, but having received my "Wild Swan" today issues raised here notwithstanding it is a vastly superior model to the old Farish one (And so it should be!). It has a huge number of better features (wheels, handrails, tender rear to name but a few), but the old Farish model captures the iconic nose better. And that for me is the A4. In some ways it's nice that if I get one I'll have plenty modelling to do, but equally I feel disappointed that has hit wide of the mark for me. Now I've noticed the errors they would always bug me. I don't see there's any need for compromises on this just because it's 2mm scale - that's an easy excuse to wheel out which I just don't see as valid with todays CAD and engineering capabilities, and the motor's in the tender so that doesn't influence things. I'm disappointed too that Dapol, and their chosen 'experts' did not actually pick up this - it only takes a quick comparison to a prototype or prototype photo to see this (which is all I initially did) - sadly Dapol seem much better at getting diesel/electrics right than steam - too often their steam models have errors. But equally, I know that when you work on a project you can become to close to it and start to fail to see the problems with it. Cheers, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveArkley Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I know that when you work on a project you can become to close to it and start to fail to see the problems with it. Or you notice it and judge that for 99% of your customer base it will not be an issue. i've seen and appreciated your work and you clearly know your stuff and have an eye for detail, but IMHO most purchasers of these probably won't even notice the differences you've spotted, won't read about them here and will carry on in blissful ignorance. Cheers Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I have to agree to disagree with Alan on the "nose issue" though I suspect we are looking at two different perspectives of the model. Dead on, the curvature of the smokebox - and by that, I mean the very front of the casing where you have the opening for the smokebox door - THAT is absolutely nailed by the Dapol model, in my opinion. However, a comparison if you will; Both pictures are on the Hattons site here and here. I'm afraid, in my case at any rate, that I don't think much of the Farish example in comparison to the Dapol model (though I hasten to add, in fairness, the Farish model has been on the market for a good number of years and was good for its time no doubt). I'm convinced the Farish A4 has shape issues of its own, albeit in different areas - that's before we get onto the underscale bogie and driving wheels, and I only have to look at the valve gear of the Farish example - which has a similar issue with its height, but moreso its overall proportions... Well, compromises have been made by both companies in this scale for this particular locomotive. You have to ask yourselves which model presents the better overall package. I know which I would purchase for an N gauge layout. There's no doubt that the Dapol model has a degree of inaccuracy at the front end - but, I dare say, the overall package is still by far better than that which went before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think you miss my point - I've totally acknowledged that the Dapol model is superior in many if not more areas. But I don't believe the curvature of the smokebox has been 'nailed by Dapol' at all. There is an odd kink immediately behind the chimney (see the side view on Hattons), and the lower front valance just behind the buffers is too deep (to match the cylinders). As such it has a lonnnnng face! Others have said it's missing features of the dome, and that the boiler slopes too much front to back meaning the chimney is at the wrong height relative to the cab. I'm not sure of these, I'd need to really look more closely and measure. Of course the Farish model is from a different era, of course. But comparing just these areas - the sweep of the smokebox streamlining behind the chimney, and the depth of the front valance and cylinders, it's better. Scale back the Dapol cylinders to the correct size and it's valve gear will start to look very odd (very low slide bars). I don't think much of the Farish model either, but with the correct shape to start from then it is a decent starting 'blank canvas'. Unfortunately I'm 50/50 on whether the Dapol could be corrected to match now - because the Dapol would need many of the same changes my Farish ones have undergone anyway (new buffers, coupling hook, lamp irons) and a few others (lip on chiney removal, wheel painting, and valve gear rebuild around the slide bars). Ironically the detailing on it would therefore be a much huger job than on a Farish! Cheers, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hayes Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 well they are both nice they are both a4s they both look like a4s close enough for me, i appreciate the super detailing aspect, and its good to point out these things its what helps improve things. that said i would not pass on the old farish or the new dapols. i wouldnt pass on minitrix ones either. they are never gonna be real but i just wish they would model lner wheels right with steel rims that are thick as they are a very prominent feature to the look of the model. for example hornbys a4 would to me be perfect if it had thick steel tyres. and if the cylinder casing curved around the cylinders. but i will be buying one of these well maybe alot of them actually. i cant moan about this model though its a very welcome edition very welcome indeed. however there is no a4 that beats the charm of my dublo silver king. that really is a great loco 50 years old and still going strong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ikks Posted March 29, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 29, 2012 Don't do 2mm.....eyes issue, but if I did, these would be irresistable, well done Dapol. Rgds.......Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium romley midland Posted March 29, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 29, 2012 The only issue that jumps out at me is from sac martins picture above, the middle driving wheel is not in the same position of revolution as the other two, look at the balance weights and the three are not at the same point which looks very odd! Cheers, Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 The only issue that jumps out at me is from sac martins picture above, the middle driving wheel is not in the same position of revolution as the other two, look at the balance weights and the three are not at the same point which looks very odd! Cheers, Richard This is accurate: http://www.train-photos.com/picture/number6118.asp Regards, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewishambill Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Although I have no need or use for an A4, the one thing that really jumped out at me in the photos from the original post in this thread is this: On every photo of an A4, the cab roof is always lower than the top Centre of the casing, see here http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/ the Dapol A4 casing's top continues to rise upwards and upwards from the front to meet the cab, in the side on view. So has not got the "hump" in it's streamlined shape, that you see in all those classic Eric Treacy photos. Now it's been pointed out, the front does seem all cylinder and not enough casing. As for the low position of the slide bars etc, I think they would look even more out of place on the A3 in position to the wheel centres, if that is how low they will be on them. Edit, I found this side view of the Sir Nigel Gresley on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/david_christie/6845891479/sizes/l/in/pool-1261311@N24/ the hump is sot so noticable here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 and the lower front valance just behind the buffers is too deep (to match the cylinders). As such it has a lonnnnng face! Looks about spot on to me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Union-of-South-Africa.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.