Jump to content
 

Dapol West Country & Rebuilt West Country


TomE
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not sure how the problems with this model can be pointed at DJ, he made a lot of mistakes, but this model was stalled a long time after he left and had been re-engineered by the latest owners before they stopped development.  Perhaps it had more to do with the Farish BoB than DJ.

 

It's odd the 59 just came back just before RevolutioN announced theirs, perhaps Farish need to show us a streamlined West Country.....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 20/08/2021 at 10:32, woodenhead said:

Not sure how the problems with this model can be pointed at DJ, he made a lot of mistakes, but this model was stalled a long time after he left and had been re-engineered by the latest owners before they stopped development.  Perhaps it had more to do with the Farish BoB than DJ.

 

The last Farish streamlined BOBs were the Chinese revamped ancient Poole models made around 2005 and unlikely to have affected Dapol"s decision to delay theirs. More likely it was the more recent Farish Merchant Navy locos which Dapol thought might influence their WC/BB sales. Shame -  It seems neither Dapol or Farish realise the potential demand for the Bulleid light pacifics which were far more numerous and widespread geographically and in duties than the small Merchant Navy class.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold
On 07/09/2021 at 15:07, woodenhead said:

Who knows what this weekend might bring - TINGs will have some announcements and clarifications.

 

At least some N gauge announcements to come at the weekend with Revolution announcing two new models.

 

News from the Dapol stand on the WC/BoB was probably another 2 years away at least. 

Tom. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The MN was about 2 and a half foot longer than the BB - about 5mm in N gauge. The driving wheels were the same diameter. The MN tender was bigger.
Must confess I’m tempted to rename and renumber a MN into a WC. To me the most noticeable difference was the nameplate.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Chris M said:

The MN was about 2 and a half foot longer than the BB - about 5mm in N gauge. The driving wheels were the same diameter. The MN tender was bigger.
Must confess I’m tempted to rename and renumber a MN into a WC. To me the most noticeable difference was the nameplate.

No, I couldn't get away with that. My Southern expert friend Colin would have an apoplectic fit!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

To follow on from my good friend Mr Crepello (and I certainly don’t claim to be an expert here!)

I’m fairly sure that some of the MN tenders were identical to those that ran behind certain WC/BBs, I think they were the largest of the WC/BB tenders and were built in BR times (to my knowledge they were only ever paired with rebuilds). Hornby Dublo’s rebuilt Bulleid was (incorrectly for their choice of locos) produced with one - an article on how to convert a Dublo WC into a reasonable likeness of a MN in Model Railway Constructor by the late Albert Goodall back in 1968 gave details of which locos could be produced without any tender modifications being necessary.

In addition to the overall length discrepancy, there are numerous other detail differences (boiler diameter for a start) which for me, would definitely make a conversion rather difficult, to say the least.

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

I'm more interested in the chassis side of things. It will be the first of a new breed of n gauge chassis (apparently) and the bench mark for everything to follow. So whatever region you model its worth keeping an eye on. With the new pullman's coming these two should go together very well. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr chapman said:

I'm more interested in the chassis side of things. It will be the first of a new breed of n gauge chassis (apparently) and the bench mark for everything to follow. So whatever region you model its worth keeping an eye on. With the new pullman's coming these two should go together very well. 

Except if it is at least two years away then it is nothing but a computer model on a hard drive, who is to say it will be the model Dapol talked about all that time ago and not something less than when it finally emerges - take the new M7, they were happy to sell it not even DCC ready at one point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

Except if it is at least two years away then it is nothing but a computer model on a hard drive, who is to say it will be the model Dapol talked about all that time ago and not something less than when it finally emerges - take the new M7, they were happy to sell it not even DCC ready at one point.

 

I get where you're coming from but I think that's a little unfair. It's basically a reissue with a tweeked chassis, and that was only because it could be quite feeble. The new chassis is trying to squeeze more weight into an existing body. Like the previous releases if you want to dcc fit it then you can find a way. Im not saying that's ideal, they are just working with what they already have. 

 

The Bulleid will be a new model from the ground up with the chassis contained within the locomotive. I don't mind them taking their time to get it right first time. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

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...