Jump to content
 

Dapol Streamlined Railcar


Richard Mawer
 Share

Recommended Posts

An item in the March 2014 Hornby magazine, on page 11 'In Brief' section, advises that Dapol have commenced CAD drawings for the proposed streamlined railcar and have changed the proposed spec to now model Nos 5-16 rather than base it on the preserved No 4. I assume this means they have found a way around not having access to No 4 for laser scanning 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

An item in the March 2014 Hornby magazine, on page 11 'In Brief' section, advises that Dapol have commenced CAD drawings for the proposed streamlined railcar and have changed the proposed spec to now model Nos 5-16 rather than base it on the preserved No 4. I assume this means they have found a way around not having access to No 4 for laser scanning 

 

If the Hornby mag information is correct it would seem that Dapol have also found a way of modelling cars which differ from each other and were built to two different diagrams.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Hornby mag information is correct it would seem that Dapol have also found a way of modelling cars which differ from each other and were built to two different diagrams.

 

It seems that is what they intend, as the mag item also states '---selected to model Nos 5-16 rather than No 4 as previously stated as they had a wider sphere of operation and allow for further detail variations'. I assume the variations will depend on what can be achieved with the tooling options, a very pleasing and interesting development. As the same mag edition also advises that the Cl 73 JA variant has commenced tooling and the JB variant is in final stages of drawing design, it seems that Dapols 'oo' gauge development has started to roll again, however no news on the Cl 121 and 122 railcars, which were originally going to be ahead of the 73 and GWR railcar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that is what they intend, as the mag item also states '---selected to model Nos 5-16 rather than No 4 as previously stated

 

I would have thought no 4 would have been avoided to allow for a MRM/Swindon Steam special edition.

 

Mike Wiltshire

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How much real difference was there, between the two batches 5-7 and 8-16? Drawings in the Wild Swan GWR railcars book don't seem to show any externally obvious differences. Working from No. 4 would have obvious advantages in that it exists to photograph and measure, if not scan, but Nos. 5-16 would be much more useful for local services etc. They were avoided where possible on branch lines, though, after one failed to stop at Staines West. The station bore the scars for the rest of its days! If you do 5-16 you can't do a Swindon limited edition as No. 4 because the body shape differs substantially. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

How much real difference was there, between the two batches 5-7 and 8-16? Drawings in the Wild Swan GWR railcars book don't seem to show any externally obvious differences. Working from No. 4 would have obvious advantages in that it exists to photograph and measure, if not scan, but Nos. 5-16 would be much more useful for local services etc. They were avoided where possible on branch lines, though, after one failed to stop at Staines West. The station bore the scars for the rest of its days! If you do 5-16 you can't do a Swindon limited edition as No. 4 because the body shape differs substantially. 

No.s 10/11/12 were slightly different (and had a different diagram) from the others as they had a toilet and 7 fewer seats which presumably had some impact on the external appearance and probably the arrangement of the windows.  There were other differences although these might not have impacted on the external appearance - No.s 5/6/7 were built on the same Lot as 2/3/4 but were nearly a ton lighter and had more seats (lacking the buffet of course) while the higher numbered cars up to 16 were over 4 tons heavier than 5/6/7.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No.s 10/11/12 were slightly different (and had a different diagram) from the others as they had a toilet and 7 fewer seats which presumably had some impact on the external appearance and probably the arrangement of the windows...

As far as I can tell, there is little if any external difference other than, presumably, a frosting or blanking of the window on the toilet compartment. Unfortunately most of the photos I've seen are from the wrong side, wrong angle or just too unclear to be sure about the window treatment. The window is certainly there and the space for the sliding door is behind it.

 

Internally, they lost six seats to the toilet compartment and an extra one next to the centre vestibule door in the other section. Presumably the pair of seats that slightly overlapped the door caused something of an obstruction.

 

 

...There were other differences although these might not have impacted on the external appearance - No.s 5/6/7 were built on the same Lot as 2/3/4 but were nearly a ton lighter and had more seats (lacking the buffet of course) while the higher numbered cars up to 16 were over 4 tons heavier than 5/6/7

 

At least part of the weight difference results from 2-7 having only a single gearbox whereas 8 and above had two. In the earlier types, the second engine had a direct drive and only came into use once the railcar had achieved a reasonable speed. The later types just used the two engines and gearboxes together at all times.

 

Nick

Edited by buffalo
Link to post
Share on other sites

At least part of the weight difference results from 2-7 having only a single gearbox whereas 8 and above had two. In the earlier types, the second engine had a direct drive and only came into use once the railcar had achieved a reasonable speed. The later types just used the two engines and gearboxes together at all times.

Nick

 

Hopefully Dapol will pick up on these important details otherwise I certainly won't be buying any  :jester:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How much real difference was there, between the two batches 5-7 and 8-16? Drawings in the Wild Swan GWR railcars book don't seem to show any externally obvious differences. Working from No. 4 would have obvious advantages in that it exists to photograph and measure, if not scan, but Nos. 5-16 would be much more useful for local services etc. They were avoided where possible on branch lines, though, after one failed to stop at Staines West. The station bore the scars for the rest of its days! If you do 5-16 you can't do a Swindon limited edition as No. 4 because the body shape differs substantially. 

 

I did not actually mean using the same body, but the running mechanism will serve.

 

I always liked the idea of no1 which was different again with driver access doors to the cab.Consideration was given to cutting up a set of Worsley Work etches but it would need two sets and it would make this an expensive option.

 

I built no17, the parcels version, from an MTK brass kit many years ago, which is a favourite of mine. I removed the side frames to the body, as the GWR did not long after introduction.

 

I do hope that Dapol will consider making the sides panels an option or add on part, expecially for the BR modellers.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

How much real difference was there, between the two batches 5-7 and 8-16? Drawings in the Wild Swan GWR railcars book don't seem to show any externally obvious differences. Working from No. 4 would have obvious advantages in that it exists to photograph and measure, if not scan, but Nos. 5-16 would be much more useful for local services etc. They were avoided where possible on branch lines, though, after one failed to stop at Staines West. The station bore the scars for the rest of its days! If you do 5-16 you can't do a Swindon limited edition as No. 4 because the body shape differs substantially. 

 

I did not actually mean using the same body, but the running mechanism will serve.

 

I always liked the idea of no1 which was different again with driver access doors to the cab.Consideration was given to cutting up a set of Worsley Work etches but it would need two sets and it would make this an expensive option.

 

I built no17, the parcels version, from an MTK brass kit many years ago, which is a favourite of mine. I removed the side frames to the body, as the GWR did not long after introduction.

 

I do hope that Dapol will consider making the sides panels an option or add on part, expecially for the BR modellers.

 

Mike Wiltshire

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • RMweb Premium

Hi

Please can anyone clarify the following points for me regarding Dapol's model of the a GWR streamlined railcar?

 

I understand that it is one of the Gloucester rail cars 5-16 they are producing ... have I misunderstood but weren't these unable to pull a trailing load ... and hence why 18 and the more angular rail cars introduced?

 

I ask as the CAD released by Dapol includes a tension lock coupler which would at the least spoil the lines of these striking railcars.

 

Also were not 5-16, initially at least, more mainline railcars rather than branch line?

 

RP

Link to post
Share on other sites

The image of the early artwork in the July issue of BRM does have a tension-lock coupler.  I sincerely hope this is removable and can be replaced with a representation of the radiators or just removed permentately.

 

As has been said earlier in the thread, Nos 2-4 were the main-line ones, introduced on the Cardif to Birmingham route via Gloucester, and had a small buffet counter and 2 toilets.

 

Nos 5-16 were generally just seating, although Nos 10-12 had a toilet (but not in the same position as either of the toilets on Nos 2-4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A note on their FB page says that more CADs will be forthcoming. They have confirmed that the finished model will NOT have tension locks. However they have future plans for the chassis which may make use of it, hence its inclusion on the first draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm struggling to find photographic evidence of the prominent round pipe on the roof. It is present in the drawing in Russell and appears from photographs to be more of a flattened conduit. A clear roof view is needed. Frontispiece in Judge shows 10/11/12 when new - clear roof views with no sign of this feature, although the picture is a Hulton/Getty shot so may be heavily retouched. Also, why the tail lamp both ends? Better to leave this as a separate fitting in the box. Also - more importantly, there's something amiss with the windows in the 'van' doors. In photos they line up with the bottom of the cab windscreens, while the top follows the curve between the side windows and the top of the windscreens. On the CAD, neither top nor bottom is correct.

CHRIS LEIGH

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The flat, droplight, section of the driving compartment side window is also apparently missing.  A picture on the 'net of one of the first series of cars shows the 'pipe' on the roof and it appears to be a conduit, not a large 'pipe', it also shows (but not well0 in a three-quarter view of a later streamlined car and again looks mot likely to be a conduit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The flat, droplight, section of the driving compartment side window is also apparently missing.  A picture on the 'net of one of the first series of cars shows the 'pipe' on the roof and it appears to be a conduit, not a large 'pipe', it also shows (but not well0 in a three-quarter view of a later streamlined car and again looks mot likely to be a conduit.

Trying to find my 40 year old Anbrico one to see what their interpretation was. I suspect it was the conduit for the ceiling lights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to find my 40 year old Anbrico one to see what their interpretation was. I suspect it was the conduit for the ceiling lights.

It's a bit battered but the old Anbrico kit has the windows in correct relationship and the cab side droplight (at least its vertical bar). The roof has a conduit with cable coming out of each end. I always felt it was bit over width and fitting bogie sideframes that turn sharp enough for trainset curves within the skirting will be a problem with the plastic model, too. The Anbrico had no sideframes as the bogies were hidden by the skirting. I fitted cut down K's sideframes and cut away the skirting. 

post-1062-0-78445200-1408741560_thumb.jpg

post-1062-0-12938600-1408741578_thumb.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

How old is that kit Chris...? Probably a lovely thing in it's day, but it still looks the part now and gives us a good idea of how good the Dapol version is likely to be when it arrives.

 

When it does, it'll be another model I don't 'need' but I'll have one nonetheless. Off to Swindon museum next week to have a sly shuftie at the real thing ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the problems is that the roof edge on the CADs doesn't seem to start dropping early enough. This affects the top of the double doors, but also the last passenger window at the other end. From photos, both the top of the double doors and the final passenger window at the other end, have a significant slope towards the cab, which leads to the top windows of the passenger window also being slopped to enable them to open. This leads to the fixed lower window glass having a sloping top edge but a straight bottom edge, to be in line with the bottom edge of the other passenger windows. While the CAD showing the other end with the passenger windows is not straight on, it appears to show that final window as rectangular.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The flat, droplight, section of the driving compartment side window is also apparently missing. A picture on the 'net of one of the first series of cars shows the 'pipe' on the roof and it appears to be a conduit, not a large 'pipe', it also shows (but not well0 in a three-quarter view of a later streamlined car and again looks mot likely to be a conduit.

Have another look at the drawing Mike. The droplight section does show up on the top drawing and if you look closely at the second drawing, you can see the 'ghost'of the droplights. It's in the Cad, it's only not draw solid/filled. (I don't know if it's right, my knowledge certainly does not reach thar far, but someting is there.) Edited by Trains&armour
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Have another look at the drawing Mike. The droplight section does show up on the top drawing and if you look closely at the second drawing, you can see the 'ghost'of the droplights. It's in the Cad, it's only not draw solid/filled

If that is it then alas it's incorrect.  They appear to be mixing details from cars of two different batches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mixing details was always a potential problem. It is too easy to assume that the car at Swindon holds clues. It doesn't. It's a different animal. Also, there are various 'modellers' drawings in the books (Russell and Judge) but modellers' drawings are notoriously unreliable. Use them - as that's all there is - but check, check and check again against photos. To answer the question further up, the Anbrico kit must be around 40 years old. I believe ABS has the moulds as he has most of the Anbrico stuff but he has never issued the kit under the ABS label, as far as I know. Having posted up these CADs, Dapol needs to make sure the things which are pointed out get checked and corrected. 

CHRIS LEIGH

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi for a very quick look it seems the second cab end differs but the funny thing is the interior against the door moudlings looks like seats vice a van and it seems to be a single door not a double, as noted something getting mixed up but still time to mangle electrons.

 

but a good start and in a short time compared to other models "on offer" in N, I hope the boys and girls at Dapol will check capacity in the shrink to fit machine ! as well as the O gauge time machine...

 

Robert      

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...