two tone green Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Some almost unknown place called BookFace, FaceBook or something or other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbs Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Hi two tone green Ah! that explains it, I find life's too short to start using that as well as a few forums. Fortunately some of the forums have been locked so that is less to look at. Thanks adrianbs PS I think one of the LNER cradles might be close to the one Dapol have used so perhaps the CArDs include a Miss LNER in the hand Dapol dealt.?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbs Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Hi two tone green et al Just had a quick look at the Dapol facebook page. Do they edit out all the negative opinions ?? If not, it says a lot about the sort of people who are visiting Dapol's Facebook page, and confirms my worst fears about the ability of modellers to distinguish between good, bad and indifferent models. One person did ask what the milk tank diagram was but I could not see any reply from Dapol.!!! I wonder if Dapol will ever dare state this in case people start checking up. Regards all adrianbs PS It would be Dia 1994 Lot 1067 of 1937 if it were anywhere near accurate, but I would be hard pressed to work that out if it did not have the number 44057 on the solebar. Once they start giving the model other liveries and labelling it as GWR, SR, LNER and BR as I expect will happen, the diagram will change accordingly . A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adams442T Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 I don't know what people are complaining about. Surely these are just as good as the Tri-ang milk/petrol tankers that we all know and love? Oh, it's 2014 not 1964. Are you sure? And they don't cost 2/6d each? Surely no one would ask for more? Oh, they do. How much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2mm Andy Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Hi 2mm Andy, Where did the pictures come from, I cant find them on the internet ?? Regards adrianbs Hi Adrian, Sorry for not replying sooner - I have been at a 2mm area group meeting all afternoon. The links to the photos were in Karhedron's post, but as others have said, appear to be from Dapol's facebook page. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbs Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) Hi All I am not at all sure that "for what we are about to receive we should be truly thankful" The brakegear had me stumped to start with but I am "ASSUMING" the Tower photo and the Dapol Facebook pictures show both sides of the same underframe, and that is what we will be receiving., Thus it now appears that the brakegear is a mixture of both GWR and LMS designs, both completely ruined by the way they have been interpreted. The model appears to have LMS brake levers with "Pin guides" ( GWR wagons have ratchet guides ) but with completely the wrong shape and profile (cf POWs). These have, as per LMS wagons, both been positioned at the same end of the wagon on a common cross shaft which seems to be non existent. On the side shown on the Tower site the lever should ( but does not) have a morton reversing clutch cam.connecting it to the cross shaft. I have no idea where the vacuum cylinder has been put as I can see no sign of it, in fact on an LMS wagon the top should be visible on the side shown on the Facebook page, to the right of the centre wheelset where there SHOULD BE a gap in the plating which, alas, is continuous like a GWR wagon The rest of the linkages shown, as far as can be seen in the pictures, are the GWR lift-link components which have been squeezed between the wheels. The latter should of course be smaller on a GWR wagon and the linkage would not then have had to be reconfigured to fit although some of the angles seem to indicate the brakes are hard on even though the lever itself is "off". The errors have been further compounded by the fact that the GWR underframe has its levers at opposite corners of the wagon. this means that on the Tower photo side the lever should be at the right hand end of the wagon with the linkage between the other pair of wheels. The vacuum cylinder would be on the other side in that picture, if it were GWR, just inboard of the right hand wheelset. The whole thing is a complete disaster making the brakegear on the POWs look perfect by comparison. Had they chosen the Dean/Churchward brakegear option for the GWR wagon they could have -------------------- but why should I redesign their model. I don't suppose there is any prospect of corrections anyway, even if they were relatively cheap to do. I wonder if the problem is that the internet is censored in China to such a degree that even Paul Bartletts photos are considered subversive ??? Whoever committed all these sins may well be heading for Dante's inferno where full size wagons whirl around his head for ever, exposing their sensuous brakegear but just out of focus. Well, now you know, but what good it will do you, and whether you care a jot, will make no difference, as that is what I expect you will get, now and forever after Regards all adrianbs Edited August 16, 2014 by adrianbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted August 17, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 17, 2014 Very nice Dave. Just out of interest what prototype do they represent? And any chance of scaling down to 4mm? Regards, Nick Not sure why anyone is disagreeing with this post! haha perhaps it is an error!? Regards, Nick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbs Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Hi All I suspect the desire for a 4mm version may have waned somewhat after having read the above posts as it would be less accurate than the existing version. Regards all adrianbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) From their FB page. It is not modelled on any one specific diagram. We had to take a commercial decision to ensure we could make sufficient liveries and sell enough models to make the project worthwhile. We hope modellers will accept these slight compromises to enable a RTR model be produced, otherwise we could not have justified the investment with the liveries and likely sales made from one specific diagram. Hope that helps. Edited August 20, 2014 by Karhedron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Tomlinson Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 From their FB page. Thanks for going boldly into (cyber)space! At least we now know direct from the horses mouth, and it will be interesting to see how successful or not these hybrid vehicles are. John. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfsboy Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 i think some peeps are equating high sales with accuracy .in my experience a wildly inaccurate model has never stopped it selling in buckets as long as its attractive and a useful subject people like .Most German beer wagons are total but seem to sell well . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ryde-on-time Posted August 20, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 20, 2014 Has anyone found photos of the other liveries being produced? Dapol say they are in their gallery but I can't find any? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Very odd comment from Dapol, and I honestly cannot follow the logic at all. What they seem to be saying then is that they deliberately made it "wrong" and generic so that it would be equally wrong for all liveries??? Surely a model made to a specific Diagram, allowing it to carry some truly authentic liveries with a further range of Private Owner liveries authentic for 6 wheeled tankers in general but not that specific wagon would have been a better way to go? Honestly, I really wish that they hadn't come out with that comment!! Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I'm wondering whether Dapol's statement reflects an initial design intention on their part or is a retrospective justification for what came out of the factory as a result of someone else's design process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adams442T Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I cannot for the life of me see why they didn't do one to a correct diagram, lms or gwr or w.h.y., do then any liveries they like but, try being honest for once,then saying sorry but insufficient demand to expand into other versions. At least we would have one correct instead of this cods up!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbs Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Hi All My post got wiped as I had visitors but pretty much exactly agreed with the last few contributors. Indeed I am pretty certain that there was no intention at all to do a generic design but someone ( or more than one ) took there eyes off the ball and pressed the big green button without having any idea just how bad the model was. I have concluded my observations and given the model as shown on Facebook and the Tower site about 35% accurate as an LMS milk tank, 50% as a GWR tank and the rest, 15%, bears no more than a minimally vague resemblance to any milk tank with regard to details. Most of these errors existed in the original CADs of 2 years ago and numerous questions have remained unanswered ever since. The first and probably most important was " What is it supposed to represent " We finally found out in the last few days that it is an LMS wagon. I for one don't believe it, next week it will probably be a GWR tank and by the end of the year SR, LNER and BR will all have been covered using exactly the same model. Indeed the quoted Dapol answer was actually in reply to exactly that question on facebook but some time back I had the same basic reply when I queried the POW 5 Plank. In this latest instance I don't think RW has had any input at all and, if he has actually queried the model, has been ignored. In view of what he has publicly stated I am afraid his otherwise excellent reputation for the Lionheart range will certainly now have some mud sticking to it and I fear that he will also be over-ruled on the Terrier if the prepros remain unaltered. The worst part about it is that it is such a mix up of designs that I would never consider trying to upgrade it even though the nearest version is the GWR. The immediate need would be a new set of wheels. Had they used the pre-existing smaller Pillbox wheels and positioned the brakeshoes correctly it would have been possible to get fairly close to the GWR wagon with a new set of brakegear, axleboxes, tank cradles and buffers but they have gone to the expense of a new wheel size and thereby spoilt the GWR brakeshoe positions. Don't expect there will be any shortage of buyers though, nor any really adverse comment in the Mags. Regards all adrianbs Edited August 21, 2014 by adrianbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
two tone green Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 So who was in charge of design and quality two years ago at Dapol if things were wrong back then. If the CAD is two years old the research and early design work must be older to allow the CAD to be created. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simond Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 It's just a shame I'd have like a couple of these, and whilst I'd have preferred GW, I could have just about justified LMS. Can't see any point in buying mongrels, when a Slaters kit will cost much the same, and be more accurate. POWsides ditto. (Both about £55 plus transfers) Adrian - don't have your list, so I don't know if you do them too, sorry! Br Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfsboy Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) It's just a shame I'd have like a couple of these, and whilst I'd have preferred GW, I could have just about justified LMS. Can't see any point in buying mongrels, when a Slaters kit will cost much the same, and be more accurate. POWsides ditto. (Both about £55 plus transfers) Adrian - don't have your list, so I don't know if you do them too, sorry! Br Simon This is to ignore the great numbers of people who like model railways but cant/wont /dont want to build a kit ,paint it ,and run it .They want something they can put on a layout /table top/carpet .They just enjoy trains .They have skill levels that are different to us model makers .They may even wash sometimes .Many on here are like the old woman who polishes her front step once a day .Its always clean no matter what other vices the interior of the house contains .No-one can argue she hasnt got the shiniest front step in the slums but everyone else has better things to do .Everyone has a right to buy what they want .Every manufacturer has the right to make what it wants and equally if you dont like it dont buy it .What you dont have the right to is insult peoples intelligence because they take a less pedantic view of their time spent running trains .Its not there to create perfect models .Its there for people to enjoy them selves.Its what used to be called a hobby . Edited August 20, 2014 by alfsboy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbs Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Hi Simond No, never on my list, some aspects are very difficult to do in whitemetal although I did investigate the possibilities many years back when I acquired the K's O gauge patterns which went back to the 50's or early 60's. They used Perspex tube for the tank with the rest all W/M. They are very rare and I realised that without transfers they were a dead duck. Apart from that the patterns were no more than basic so I think I sold them on to someone else with lower standard than I demand. Had I been able to get transfers done cheaply I might have tried to reintroduce them with upgraded patterns. Naturally to be accurate milk tanks should have an overall coat of sludge unless just out of shops, so transfers are not really important except for the odd single wagon in a train, in later years. However I doubt we will see many trains of Dapol tanks treated that way. The K's kit may still be available from someone but I don't know who. It was basically the early GW version but could easily have been altered to the later variant. ( something which Dapol clearly had not considered ) One of the odd aspects of the statement from Dapol is the implication that if they made an accurate model it could only be done in one livery which is not true of either the GWR or LMS variants. I believe they could do more variants than they have already listed and all could have been about 80% to 90% accurate on my scoring system. A bit of "clever design" would be needed and they might have to have a little bag of plastic bits to add on but even the non kit builders must be able to do that or get someone else to help them. They would only be able to cover one region plus BR whichever design they chose but tanks moved around in BR days anyway. I doubt Dapol will confine themselves just to LMS branded wagons anyway, in view of the fact that the model is closer to a GWR wagon in many respects although in my book it gets a "FAIL" whatever they do with it at the moment.. regards adrianbs Edited August 27, 2014 by adrianbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simond Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Alfsboy I don't think I insulted anyone or even mentioned intelligence - and certainly didn't intend to cause any offence. I said that it's a shame that they aren't better, because I would have liked to buy a couple. If you like them, enjoy. Not for me or anyone else to tell you what to spend your hard-earned on. Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbs Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Hi Simond I am sorry you have been abused in this way after what I think is your first post on this forum. I am entirely with you but, like you, I have found there seems to be a large number of modellers encouraging Dapol to continue making innaccurate models. They do their best to discredit anyone who wishes to see better models and point out errors. Dapol's claim that it is a commercial necessity, and the reason they gave, holds as much water as an inverted collander with no bottom. They have produced 6 innaccurate model series to date although this is the first time they have come up with this excuse. The brake van was wrong because it had mistakes which it was too late to correct, so they claimed. The errors on the POWs have, as yet, not been explained away even when admitted. It will be interesting to see what the excuse is if the Terrier is produced as a "Generic" model with no single reasonably accurate prototype being represented. We have been shown prepro samples but there have been no replies when mistakes have been pointed out. This is exactly what has happened in the past and it is looking increasingly like the same fate will befall the Terrier. I will just bang another nail in the milk tank coffin, the lettering "Shunt with care" is in the wrong place !! Is that a necessity I wonder?? Regards all adrianbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ryde-on-time Posted August 21, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 21, 2014 I will just bang another nail in the milk tank coffin, the lettering "Shunt with care" is in the wrong place !! Is that a necessity I wonder?? Perhaps Dapol could argue that as it's a ficticious model how can it be wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I think the difference in the case of the Terrier is that while it may be to an extent "generic" it will still be a Terrier, and most people could probably live with that. The milk tank, being a mix of prototypes from different companies is somewhat different, and in my humble opinion far less forgivable. As I see it, the equivalent in the loco sense would be to cross the said Terrier with say a Jinty! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coniston branch Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 As I see it, the equivalent in the loco sense would be to cross the said Terrier with say a Jinty! Is that not what Hornby did with there oo jinty ? Phil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now