Dapol Class 121 and 122 in OO gauge

[47375]

I have purchased 55019 / 975042 in NSE but not 100% sure if the colours are right as it looks like it should have the NSE red cantrail line to match the Hatton NSE 121 and maybe a black roof. It’s hard to find too many photos of it in nse with a headlight that is definitive enough to tell if the cantrail is correct or should nse red 

[keefer]

975042 at Salisbury 10/09/1993, has red cantrail: http://www.departmentals.com/photo/975042-2

[tractor_37260]

My Class 122 example has a fairly loud motor hum/resonance, and that's after running it in on DC shuttle track for a number of hours. With the seating part removed, if a finger is held lightly on top of the motor when running the hum stops, it's also worse in one direction. Plan is to remove the motor and put some insulation between it and the metal chassis to see if that will improve matters....a sound decoder is planned for it in the future, so that should hide any remaining hum...............

 

Question re the supplied destination blinds - are they self adhesive ?  to be fitted to the front faces of the boxes ? 

 

 

[Classsix T]

On 12/02/2019 at 21:59, JDW said:

Unfortunately they've made the same mistake as Heljan did on their O gauge class 60, the orange block on the Loadhaul version is angled the wrong way. The cabside division between orange and black should always slope up left to right. On the images on Rails' website on the left hand end it slopes up right to left.

 

How it should look:

 

It might just be the angle of Rails' picture but the angle if the orange/yellow divide looks odd on the front too (too vertical)

Picked up my Loadhaul bubble on Saturday. It had been made apparent by pictures this was something of a paint job applied to un-modified tooling exercise, so I wasn't expecting great things, but that's a frustrating "could've been right" error.

 

I'm humming and hahing whether to correct the window aperture beneath the logo. Should the black painted door furniture be removed completely as well?

There was a round of postings specifically about 55012 on RMWeb including details of the alterations to the passenger saloon, but I've not had a search yet.

 

Still, on the basis that I probably never would've got around to doing my Lima bubble as you have, she'll do.

C6T. 

[JDW]

I think your right, from memory most of the passenger saloon doors were sealed with handles removed, and just one or two left in use.

[Classsix T]

Yeah, thought as much. Dapol have given two doors per side silver brightwork but just left the handles, bumpstops and grabs black on the rest.

Hows about the guards doors, did they retain functional use or were they shorn of furniture and sealed when the window was plated?

 

I fully understand why Dapol have done it this way BTW, I'm not grumbling, just trying to ascertain what could be done to make it more prototypical.

C6T. 

[JDW]

My knowledge doesn't go that deep I'm afraid, only what I've seen from pictures!  I can see why they did it and they've made a reasonable job of it at least, it isn't as obvious as it could be.  Lima did something similar with their first Loadhaul 37 (37713) which had the logos applied as "stickers" covering one of the windows, which are prone to peeling on many of the ones I've seen second hand.  

[adb968008]

57 minutes ago, JDW said:

My knowledge doesn't go that deep I'm afraid, only what I've seen from pictures!  I can see why they did it and they've made a reasonable job of it at least, it isn't as obvious as it could be.  Lima did something similar with their first Loadhaul 37 (37713) which had the logos applied as "stickers" covering one of the windows, which are prone to peeling on many of the ones I've seen second hand.  

And that emerged at £39.99 too ... when stuff around it was still selling at £15-19.99 in the sale. Not surprisingly it was a hardsell, especially when for £45 you could get a Railwayania respray complete with Replica transfers.

Ive still got Replicas Load Haul transfers.

[Classsix T]

Here's a fair portrait of "Definitely not Crepello" and in the heart of the region that I bought it for.

 

Another omission from the model would seem to be the full depth bodyside handrail (to facilitate getting up and down to track level no doubt) alongside one of the operable saloon doors.

 

I think my biggest issue with this model is going to be the logo area, guard's compt. window aperture and door furniture. The rest doesn't really bother me that much.

That said, my biggest problem with the Lima job was my lack of confidence hacking off the headcode boxes and not making a fist of installation of destination blinds. The chassis is/was a bit pants admittedly.

 

Two steps forward, one step back! C6T.

[Sails]

On 24/02/2019 at 02:48, tractor_37260 said:

My Class 122 example has a fairly loud motor hum/resonance, and that's after running it in on DC shuttle track for a number of hours. With the seating part removed, if a finger is held lightly on top of the motor when running the hum stops, it's also worse in one direction. Plan is to remove the motor and put some insulation between it and the metal chassis to see if that will improve matters....a sound decoder is planned for it in the future, so that should hide any remaining hum...............

 

Question re the supplied destination blinds - are they self adhesive ?  to be fitted to the front faces of the boxes ? 

 

 

 

Interesting to hear this, have a similar experience regarding motor noise with my earlier release 122, let us know how the insulation attempt works please.

 

M 

[tractor_37260]

17 hours ago, Sails said:

 

Interesting to hear this, have a similar experience regarding motor noise with my earlier release 122, let us know how the insulation attempt works please.

 

M 

 

It's an early BR Blue 122 I have. I dismantled it, removed the motor and fitted a small oblong piece of 6mm thick soft foam between the motor and chassis, it's now much quieter and that annoying hum is almost completely gone.  Once the motor is removed, there is a very small piece of thin insulation already under it, which I removed. 

HTH

Edited February 26, 2019 by tractor_37260

[Torn-on-the-platform]

On 16/02/2019 at 18:16, BRIAN T said:

Just been to buy the green syp from my local superb model shop but alas there are no destination or headcode sheets in the box , after opening a further six boxes .....no destination blinds etc, seems the batch has affected by the omission of this necessary detailing.

Anybody else?

 

 

Late to the game, but same for me. Good to know that Dapol will correct this quickly.

 

I've just purchased my first diesel since the Bachmann 03 first came out! The culprit being the new batch 122 with speed whiskers, taking advantage of the extra discounted price currently given by Rails (£116 DCC ready). My first impression is that the green is on the lighter side, but I am OK with this as it will be running alone. When it was put on the test track, I was impressed by the directional lighting and initial smooth running.

 

When I got it home onto my own layout, I was struck by how slow it was. I checked some reviews online and noted that others had had this problem and it was rectified by running in. This said, it was incredibly smooth at these slow speeds. Disappointingly after an hour or so in each direction, whilst speed has improved, I have lost the smooth running - with regular stalls, made all the more noticeable by the interruption of the lighting. I will set to work cleaning the wheels and contacts, but aside from my Hornby H classes, both of which required new motors, I have not had such a poor runner out of the box in several years. It isn't quite bad enough for me to want to return it.

[BRIAN T]

20 hours ago, Torn-on-the-platform said:

 

Late to the game, but same for me. Good to know that Dapol will correct this quickly.

 

I've just purchased my first diesel since the Bachmann 03 first came out! The culprit being the new batch 122 with speed whiskers, taking advantage of the extra discounted price currently given by Rails (£116 DCC ready). My first impression is that the green is on the lighter side, but I am OK with this as it will be running alone. When it was put on the test track, I was impressed by the directional lighting and initial smooth running.

 

When I got it home onto my own layout, I was struck by how slow it was. I checked some reviews online and noted that others had had this problem and it was rectified by running in. This said, it was incredibly smooth at these slow speeds. Disappointingly after an hour or so in each direction, whilst speed has improved, I have lost the smooth running - with regular stalls, made all the more noticeable by the interruption of the lighting. I will set to work cleaning the wheels and contacts, but aside from my Hornby H classes, both of which required new motors, I have not had such a poor runner out of the box in several years. It isn't quite bad enough for me to want to return it.

Hi, same with the streamlined railcar, sorted out by increasing the pressure on the brushes on the armature,...huge improvement.

[StuTheUseless]

On ‎04‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 14:02, 50030 said:

- 4D-009-008 Dapol Class 121 Single Car DMU number 55033 in Midline livery.

 

Hmmm, Will Dapol model the different headcode box’s on each end that it had in midline livery?

From the pictures on Rails' website, it looks as though they have.

 

Now I think I want Dapol to have my babies.

[wombatofludham]

I'm amazed that Dapol appear to have modelled the differing ends of the Midline one off.  Very tempted now!

[owentherail]

10 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

I'm amazed that Dapol appear to have modelled the differing ends of the Midline one off.  Very tempted now!

Me too. ( I'm surprised they have tho)

[66738]

I really want one too, but must stay strong and stick to what actually ran up Manchester and Yorkshire. 55033 would have pretty much been tethered to the West Midlands. But credit  to Dapol for going to the effort in creating this. Gives me hope for Dapol to produce another oddity in class 122  55005 with 121 exhausts as seen on the Stalybridge - Stockport shuttles in the mid 80’s. (55006 would also be welcome.)

66738

[adb968008]

On 04/01/2018 at 12:45, adb968008 said:

To follow up on yesterday’s posts, today I’ve done some performance testing.
For this I have used my silly gradient... as this seeks to show not just speed, but acceleration performance too.

To start with, here is a video of the chassis I modified above, and a GW 121 behind which is unmodified, This is a standing start on a gradient. The unmodified unit is drawing 0.4amp, the modified draws 0.2amp =0.6amp approx which on a 1amp Controller, with line losses is close to but not at its max. (Two unmodified units drawing 0.8amp are both negatively impacted in speed even more so and wouldn’t climb this hill as it was beyond the power available from the controller).
 

 

The next video shows both 121’s modified, you can see that they are now both very closely aligned, the GW unit ever so slightly out performs the blue grey unit, although they look it, they are not coupled together in this video.

 

 

 

 

 

They are both drawing approx 0.2amps, with a single gear shaft (0.4amp approx total) and are in line with (but still at the higher end) of UK industry norms for consumption, but allow speed and performance of the motors to reach there max, which is a much more realistic top speed.
Here is a standing start video, showing realistic control is still possible (this unit is maxing at 70% on the controller, not full speed) so probably 0.15amps. And could go faster, but is more than double it’s original speed before the shaft was removed.

 

 

 

 

 

Whilst increased speed isn’t to everyone’s taste and some are probably ok with performance being less than other locos on their layout, it is worth considering that the 2 shafts, and their torque is using considerably more power, than 1, whilst the unit is going slower, to achieve a higher speed the motor is working much harder, which could impact the life of the motor.


Here’s a few pictures how to modify the unit (bear in mind it’s your own choice todo so, and is probably outside warranty, even if, in my opinion it’s a better result).

1. Body removal is straight forwards, it just up clips, either side at either end, i’d Start with the open end, as the guards van end has exhaust pipes that sit just under the chassis your removing, and this way you can slide it slightly away from the cab.



Fortunately the screws you need to remove are all different sizes throughout this exercise, so just keep the count correct..1 bogie retainer, 1 pcb retainer, 2 gearbox retainers, 4 seat retainers.

2. 4 screws hold the seats on, these are straight forwards to remove and the seats lift straight off.

3. Remove the bogie retaining screw, and the pcb retainer

4. Slide the bogie side to side (don’t lower it out at is stage) and undo the two gearbox retaining screws..

5. The bogie now has movement in all directions, hold it with the frame and flip it sideways, I used the smallest screw in My jewellers screwdriver set to unclipped the gearbox cover and flip it upwards towards the chassis. (Flip the whole chassi/bogie over and repeat for the other side, again don’t let the bogie drop out, it’s still connected by the pickups).

Worm exposed

6. Using a small screwdriver, slide up the plastic cover that protects the pickups.

7. Finally, lift the pcb cover, approx 4mm above the chassis, and now for the greasy bit, using your fingers, or tweezers to pull out the worm/shaft, if it doesn’t immediately move, turn the worm or lift the pcb a little higher, it’s loose fit.


8. Reassemble again, in reverse order, slide the plastic cover back over the gearbox (it sits inside the pickups, so sometime you need to tweak the pickup ends out a little, then snap fit the gearbox lid, turn it right way up, add the pcb screw (the smallest screw you have),then the two gear box retainers, then the fat stubby screw to hold the bogie, add the seats and their 4 screws, finally add the body, starting with the guards van end, and sliding the exhausts under the frame, beware of the tail lamp irons, and finally snap it back together.

 

 

As the question of performance of the 121 has arisen again, I thought I would refresh this post.

[adb968008]

29 minutes ago, 66738 said:

I really want one too, but must stay strong and stick to what actually ran up Manchester and Yorkshire. 55033 would have pretty much been tethered to the West Midlands. But credit  to Dapol for going to the effort in creating this. Gives me hope for Dapol to produce another oddity in class 122  55005 with 121 exhausts as seen on the Stalybridge - Stockport shuttles in the mid 80’s. (55006 would also be welcome.)

66738

Those two units were staple around Manchester for years.

indeed for many years as a child I thought that was the whole fleet as it was years before I saw any other.

[dibber25]

Saw 55003 in TRains4U at lunchtime. Very nice. Cleverly designed piece of 'mix-and-match' tooling. I'm tempted by 55021 in its Railtrack sandite guise, too. (CJL)

[ColinK]

You had me fooled for a minute, the 55003 I know had 6 wheel bogies and was named Meld.

 

i remember 55005 on the Staly shuttles too, didn’t know it had 121 exhausts though. My bubble car has Stockport and Stalybridge on the destination blinds thanks to Railtec transfers.

[66738]

13 hours ago, dibber25 said:

Saw 55003 in TRains4U at lunchtime. Very nice. Cleverly designed piece of 'mix-and-match' tooling. I'm tempted by 55021 in its Railtrack sandite guise, too. (CJL)

Chris, do you mean 55003 or 55033? 

Think you are probably talking about the latter but 55003 is also a lovely model. Only spoilt slightly with the upside down W for a M. 

66738

[66738]

26 minutes ago, ColinK said:

You had me fooled for a minute, the 55003 I know had 6 wheel bogies and was named Meld.

 

i remember 55005 on the Staly shuttles too, didn’t know it had 121 exhausts though. My bubble car has Stockport and Stalybridge on the destination blinds thanks to Railtec transfers.

Yes, 55005 gained its ‘antlers’ some time between 1981 and 1986. She still wears them today in preservation. I can only think the reason was they only had 121 stacks in stock. 

It’s something different for us to model.

66738

[dibber25]

On 02/05/2019 at 09:13, 66738 said:

Chris, do you mean 55003 or 55033? 

Think you are probably talking about the latter but 55003 is also a lovely model. Only spoilt slightly with the upside down W for a M. 

66738

Sorry - W55033 was what I meant. If I'd got it right first time it wouldn't have been confused with that other '55' that bears no comparison! (CJL)

 

This one:

 

[JDW]

...complete with a blue-grey door, a nice detail for something a bit different on the model.