Les1952 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The tender immediately stood out as wrong to me - and it's really the lining. Fortunately this does mean they'll be able to fix it in future. But why they couldn't get it right (as with so many of these things) to start with disappoints me. Cheers, Alan Looking at Adam's picture the blue one is in the background. The top line is too high on this also. This one was also in the cabinet at Warley and I failed to spot it was too high. I didn't go to Ally Pally so didn't see it there, but plenty of people did. Of those who looked at it, did anybody tell Dave? I will also put up my hand as failing to spot the angle of the top of the deflector when shown the prototype. In defence I was more concerned about losing a moulded-on worksplate that is another inaccuracy Scotsman has had in preservation! All the very best Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Its just begging to be converted to 2mm FS . Who'll be the first to do it? Wheelsets only, or a full chassis as well? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Steven B Posted April 3, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 3, 2012 Dear Dapol, I am very disapointed with my new steam locomotive. I am unable to fill the tender with water and coal as there is a motor in the way. Similarly my footplate crew could not light a fire as a drive-shaft blocked access to the firebox door. I will not be buying any new models until these errors are rectified! Looks like another great N Gauge model - the future's bright, the future's N! Happy modelling. Steven B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I'm certainly looking forward to building a small fleet of them- though maybe not the fifteen I had for "Farndon Road". Having spent many "happy" hours improving Farish A3s and A4s, the last of which went off to new owners today and yesterday respectively, at least this time I will have models that are substantially more accurate to start with- and that can only be a good thing. Coaling and dirtying, and adding crew- not an issue. Some other minor alterations, so what? If I don't work on my loco stock I end up feeling more of a collector than a modeller. All the very best Les Currently enjoying the first of the new fleet (an A4) purring round an oval of Unitrak on the dining room table running-in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomag Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I thought this be the point of a message board - for realtively free and open discussion. Sadly, as usual you take out of context - I've said clearly that it's an infinitely better model than the Farish alternative. But equally I am not blind to its errors, and pushing for higher standards is something most of us agree on I'd have thought.... Cheers, Alan I agree that where there are errors, rather than an engineering compromise, it is quite acceptable to adversley comment on a model. In this case the tender lining could have been printed correctly at probably no greater expence or time than the version applied. Can somebody confirm if the wheel spacing of a Farish A1 is similar to an A3? Given that Dapol have stopped manufacturing chassis which are adverised as being compatible with my track cleaner I amd looking to put a A3 body on a Farish chassis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Can somebody confirm if the wheel spacing of a Farish A1 is similar to an A3? Given that Dapol have stopped manufacturing chassis which are adverised as being compatible with my track cleaner I amd looking to put a A3 body on a Farish chassis. Seriously - switch off your Relco, or equivalent, clean the tracks without it, and just buy up-to-date models. It really isn't worth fitting an old chassis in order to support that destructive approach to track cleaning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 It really isn't worth fitting an old chassis in order to support that destructive approach to track cleaning. The A1 chassis isn't very old! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Can somebody confirm if the wheel spacing of a Farish A1 is similar to an A3? Given that Dapol have stopped manufacturing chassis which are adverised as being compatible with my track cleaner I amd looking to put a A3 body on a Farish chassis. It all becomes semantics I suppose in N gauge, but in full scale terms the A1 and A3 do not share the same wheelbase or wheel spacing. I honestly cannot see the point of removing the chassis from the Dapol model and putting in the A1 Mech - you would need to replace the tender too as the A1 is tender driven. Seems an awful lot of effort (to me). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLD Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 From a conversation off forum (involving a couple of other RMWeb members and other N Gauge modellers), I think some of the apparent frustration with 'silly little errors' [for want of a better phrase] in recent Dapol N gauge releases stems from the way Dave has been seen to interact here with the 4mm modellers (on the Western and 22 in particular), but we didn't have anything like the same involvement with the A3 & A4. The CADs weren't presented for scrutiny and there wasn't the same opportunity for those with real in-depth knowledge of the prototypes to feed back and comment before the dies were cut and it was too late to make corrections... There's a feeling that "perhaps the manufacturers think they can 'get away with more' in N gauge than they can in 00" The A3 and A4 are undeniably fine models and a vast improvement on what has gone before; but a series of relatively minor but entirely avoidable compromises/errors stops them being in the premier league... Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The A3 and A4 are undeniably fine models and a vast improvement on what has gone before; but a series of relatively minor but entirely avoidable compromises/errors stops them being in the premier league... Paul It's nice to have an expert in design and production on the forum. How do you know which compromises/errors are indeed such and which were considered decisions? You obviously know the intimate details of Dapols time scale and budget for the complete project. As with the good doctor it's a case of tone rather than content. By all means point out variations between the model and the real thing, but please don't start using emotive language like "entirely avoidable", unless you are qualified to do so. Bernard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 You could also offer evidence to support your observations as I did. Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 By all means point out variations between the model and the real thing, but please don't start using emotive language like "entirely avoidable",unless you are qualified to do so. Bernard With respect Bernard - the tender lining error is entirely avoidable. It is an unfortunate error, but one which can be readily identified from a great number of sources both in book, video and on internet flora and fauna. It is an unfortunate, but avoidable error. Does it detract from the overall model? Not in my view, but equally once seen, the error stands out. It is factually correct that it is an error. I think "we" need to be careful not to turn this into a "them and us" scenario every single time someone picks out a possible error. Equally I think "we" need to be less stand-off-ish when presenting constructive criticism. I use "we" speaking generally, of course. If we do not use emotive langauge and simply state the facts - including any and all possible errors - then there is no problem, because everyone can make their own minds up as to how they personally perceive the model in question. From my point of view, it's a first batch - it has a few errors - but overall it's still a terrific package. The next batch will get the livery error right, now that it has been spotted, and everyone will benefit from this as a consequence; manufacturer and consumer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 It all becomes semantics I suppose in N gauge, but in full scale terms the A1 and A3 do not share the same wheelbase or wheel spacing. I honestly cannot see the point of removing the chassis from the Dapol model and putting in the A1 Mech - you would need to replace the tender too as the A1 is tender driven. Seems an awful lot of effort (to me). Actually probably not. All you want is the tender drive unit from the A1 (not that you'll get one of those as spares...), and gut the A3's tender to replace its drive mechanism and ditch the drive shaft to leave the loco chassis undriven. I believe the tender wheel spacing is the same between the two. Or he could just ditch the snakeoil Relco Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Actually probably not. All you want is the tender drive unit from the A1 (not that you'll get one of those as spares...), and gut the A3's tender to replace its drive mechanism and ditch the drive shaft to leave the loco chassis undriven. I believe the tender wheel spacing is the same between the two. Touche Frobisher - that's a fair assessment that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 From a conversation off forum (involving a couple of other RMWeb members and other N Gauge modellers), I think some of the apparent frustration with 'silly little errors' [for want of a better phrase] in recent Dapol N gauge releases stems from the way Dave has been seen to interact here with the 4mm modellers (on the Western and 22 in particular), but we didn't have anything like the same involvement with the A3 & A4. The CADs weren't presented for scrutiny and there wasn't the same opportunity for those with real in-depth knowledge of the prototypes to feed back and comment before the dies were cut and it was too late to make corrections... There's a feeling that "perhaps the manufacturers think they can 'get away with more' in N gauge than they can in 00" Paul Having been one of those who saw the CAD and commented on it there was an secrecy element of not Dapol wanting to repeat the expereince of the B1, where a long-trailed model had a like-for-like equivalent brought out at a point at which Dapol had invested too much development money to pull out. I will definitely say I failed to spot one or two things, though it would have been very helpful to have had more pairs of eyes involved I can understand why there weren't. Some of the "silly little errors" come down to tooling costs- how many smokebox doors can one afford to tool? How many reversing rods? Compromises have to be made. I think the compromises in tooling allow for " very close to" most of the class without necessarily being 100% right for any of them. I'm just glad I didn't have to make those decisions. Others, such as the tender top lining and the cab roof black stopping too far up, were clearly visible on display at Warley and Ally Pally for people to comment on. Did they? As an aside, Farish made five BR green A3s. Of these Prince Palatine had the wrong boiler, Merry Hampton the wrong cab, Flying Scotsman and Blink Bonny the wrong tenders and Knight of Thistle the wrong name (no "THE" since 1932). All the very best Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLD Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Thanks Les, Interesting and perfectly valid comment. The point I was trying to make (missed or misinterpreted by some I think) was that these are very good models, but Dapol have set such high expectations with some of their other models which perhaps weren't quite matched with these... Generally, I'm in the 'cut them some slack' camp. It's not so much minor variations between class members that bother me, more the odd things like the gap between cylinder and valence on the A4 and the cut out buffer beam on the A3, (simple explanation/reasoning for compromise there would placate many) and daft things like lining errors are entirely avoidable but no manufacturer is immune on that one! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Crepello Posted April 3, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 3, 2012 Another great model from Dapol. There'll be plenty of ECML layouts around soon with these beauties on the market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Another great model from Dapol. There'll be plenty of ECML layouts around soon with these beauties on the market. Agreed, while the lining error and slightly incorrect deflectors may be a minor niggle,I m still looking forward very keenly to receiving my preordered "Lemberg". Are there any release dates yet? At last we have a decent model of an A3 in N, my only plea would be a "Prince Palatine" or "Salmon Trout" in final guise with cabside stripe in the next batch Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I think "we" need to be careful not to turn this into a "them and us" scenario every single time someone picks out a possible error. Equally I think "we" need to be less stand-off-ish when presenting constructive criticism. I use "we" speaking generally, of course. If we do not use emotive langauge and simply state the facts - including any and all possible errors - then there is no problem, because everyone can make their own minds up as to how they personally perceive the model in question. That's a really nice idea Simon, but I think we both know it doesnt work like that on Rmweb, and hasnt done for a long time. I for one have found Dr Al's posts a breath of fresh air; informative in a field in which I know only a little and free of hype and hysteria. Significantly, he praises the models where due and offers solutions that the individual (should he wish) can adopt to improve matters. OK, I can just about see that the suggestions of carelessness might be seen as unnecessary - but more to the point, it's becoming very evident why some posters are so prickly about them. But I really do not see why he (or anyone) has to be subject to assorted nitpicking/rivet counting accusations (as in the A4 thread) and the straw man arguments and outright ridicule that's been evident here. Both Pacifics do look to be nice models, but to quote somebody or other, there's nothing made that cannot be made better. Nevertheless, and despite me going to the length of saying that, I've no real interest in 2mm and I have absolutely no doubt that this will be construed as 'Dapol bashing', to borrow a phrase from the A4 thread. Whatever; I'd simply say that the principle of objective and unemotional appraisal of RTR models is one that I've been defending in various places for some time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The tender lining on the GNR design tender must be down to using the same lining template as is used for LNER design tenders and though the difference in height might be about 1mm to 1½mm difference, it looks like a mile in the images. I think as usual we are down to the bugbear of digital cameras giving very large images for scrutiny, and I had to pinch myself that the actual models are quite miniscule. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted April 3, 2012 Author Share Posted April 3, 2012 the principle of objective and unemotional appraisal of RTR models is one that I've been defending As do I so please don't infer that isn't my approach. ....crude ...... ugly ...... looks odd......frustrating ......careless ......Shame .....mistakes have been made. Look, I have no problem with factual comment but it's the tone that grates and I can't reconcile the above with the below within the context but there again if it suits your agenda .......... I for one have found Dr Al's posts a breath of fresh air; informative in a field in which I know only a little and free of hype and hysteria. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted April 3, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 3, 2012 Ian I don't think Rmweb is unique in this sense, I have noticed similar language on plenty of other threads and fora where any criticism is in itself, errr, criticised for being rivet counting / nit picking etc etc. I don't know the answer to it - there is a fine line between informative, knowledgable and helpful vs overly critical, harsh, negative, "rivet counter" (used in the pejorative sense) and too often it seems to depend on the reader as to how things are interpreted. Cheers, Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 ...crude ...... ugly ...... looks odd......frustrating ......careless ......Shame .....mistakes have been made. Look, I have no problem with factual comment but it's the tone that grates and I can't reconcile the above with the below within the context but there again if it suits your agenda .......... Yes, I see those words Andy. I also see those below - I honestly cant remember the last time I saw someone go to such lengths to put forward positives as well as negatives: The difference that more to scale wheels makes over previous models is huge and really helps the overall look - probably one of the most noticeable things to my eyes. I like too the representation of the more complex aspects of the lubricators/valve gear on the rear wheel and the speedo drive. Overall a nice looking model, but plenty to do to turn it into a stunner... But equally I can understand that either way, they can't please everybody on this one. It has a huge number of better features (wheels, handrails, tender rear to name but a few) I've totally acknowledged that the Dapol model is superior in many if not more areas. It's worth re-reading as at no point did I say the Farish model is universally better - only that *aspects* of it appear better with regards the body/front end shape/cylinders....Pretty much everything else on the Dapol model is in a different league, as I've already said. ...and too often it seems to depend on the reader as to how things are interpreted. Indeed Mike, which rather gets in the way of Simon's sentiment that we should try to remain impassive. I'm quite sure that using terms like 'nitpicker' and 'rivet counter' only serves to raise the temperature. It's about tolerance - if I was to start censuring people because I didnt think their standards were high enough, I'd soon know about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted April 3, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 3, 2012 The point I was trying to make (missed or misinterpreted by some I think) was that these are very good models, but Dapol have set such high expectations with some of their other models which perhaps weren't quite matched with Same applies to the signals (in my opinion), I have a full set of LMS drawings for every item of signalling equipment, right down to the nuts and bolts used to build them, I also have photos of lots of them, I would have been more than happy to lend assistance, however I don't see the same level of error correction going on, in fact I mostly see "I want them, and I want them now, now, now" - so whilst not arguing about the errors (as I don't know) why is it only certain items (locomotives mainly) attract comment and yet most other things are accepted "as is" by the majority. (To save wandering off topic, this is a rhetorical question) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveArkley Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I thought this be the point of a message board - for realtively free and open discussion. Sadly, as usual you take out of context - I've said clearly that it's an infinitely better model than the Farish alternative. But equally I am not blind to its errors, and pushing for higher standards is something most of us agree on I'd have thought.... Cheers, Alan No, he was entering into 'realtively free and open discussion'. It amazes me how those who dish out criticism seem to struggle to take it. I have to say I've greatly admired Dapol Dave's restraint in the face of your criticisms. That's just my two penneth, and represents one thread of a healthy discussion. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.