N gauge Class 50

[Padishar Creel]

I remember them from the Liverpool Exchange portion of Liverpool/Manchester to Glasgow service end of the 60s... :-)

es grüßt

pc

[Chris M]

Must be old. I remember them most in South Devon when my children were young. And before that on WCML. I still think of them as a new diesel loco.

[bingley hall]

Copped D401 at Lostock Hall in April 1968 along with about half a dozen kettles in steam.

[TomE]

That curve on the real loco only rises a relatively small amount, a couple of inches which 50mm is 0.33mm at 1/148 on the model. That is very hard to see and certainly does not show up on photo's taken at odd angles through a glass or perspex display case. I am not sure how well 1mm would show up and that is near 6inches. When I kneeled down and looked at the face it was not flat IMHO. We must remember that some details will not always so up correctly at this scale and may need to be over scaled to show up. Some may complain if some detail was made to big on purpose just to make it look more to scale.

 

 

Respectfully Richard, I disagree. 

 

The more I look at the front of the Dapol EPs the more I see the shape is wrong. I couldn't quite find a photo of the real thing at the same angle as a photo I took at TINGs, but even something close still highlights that the curve is very evident when a direct comparison is made.

 

 

Anyway, My Railtec NSE decals arrived yesterday in anticipation of a repaint into the revised scheme as worn by Lion at the MHR. I may have to see what can be done about the nose & headcode box at the same time as respraying it or decide if I can just live with it as is. 

 

Tom.  

[LBRJ]

Given the the whole model is only about one inch high I think I can just about  live with  the level of inaccuracy as will be seen from two feet away.

 

Id rather use my energies to try and make the rest of the scene look even somewhere near as good as the Dapol 50 passing through it at a scale 60 mph

[Tricky-CRS]

Respectfully Richard, I disagree. 

 

The more I look at the front of the Dapol EPs the more I see the shape is wrong. I couldn't quite find a photo of the real thing at the same angle as a photo I took at TINGs, but even something close still highlights that the curve is very evident when a direct comparison is made.

 

Class50.jpg

 

Anyway, My Railtec NSE decals arrived yesterday in anticipation of a repaint into the revised scheme as worn by Lion at the MHR. I may have to see what can be done about the nose & headcode box at the same time as respraying it or decide if I can just live with it as is. 

 

Tom.  

 

Hi Tom

 

Sorry but the model is curved or at least rises in the centre and my maths are correct. Your photo is of a black EP looking down on to the curve. Black is a terrible colour to photograph, to show shapes and detail in as it tends to blend together and hides shadows. Looking up or down at shallow curves like that, they tend to appear flat in images. 

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Suffolk Rob]

As there are a number of knowledgeable class 50 experts on this thread  I'm hoping to get some livery advice.

 

I'm looking for a model suitable to run on a small china clay plank, ideally in a livery/name combination that could have been seen with both clayhoods and CDAs- my research seems to indicate that the key date for the main swop from hoods to CDAs was Feb88 with my source being John Vaughan's china clay books.

 

I'm not so much looking for an example that was definitely seen on such duties but would ideally like an example that could quite plausibly have been seen on them 

 

Am I right to think that such a class 50 would be most likely to be a Plymouth allocated example on a running in turn or light duties?

 

I think I've already identified that both the Large Logo and NSE liveried examples would be suitable, possibly with a new name/number but I'm finding myself more and more drawn to the black-roofed 50049.

 

I understand that this represents 50049 in recent preservation livery but, looking at pictures of, for example, 50003 in its 80s incarnation of the livery, the key elements of the livery, roof red buffer beam and cantrail stripe seem to be the same. Can anyone tell me if it is as simple as renumbering/naming to accurately portray a 80s black roof example?

 

In searching for pictures of black roof examples, I find plenty of pictures from 1987 so fine for the hoods, but nothing between then and summer/autumn 88 when every black roof 50 I have identified seems to have been repainted into NSE livery. I've searched a number of class 50 sites but haven't located any with clear dates for livery changes. I did find a picture of 50003 with the black roof with a caption of 1989 but many more dated 1988 with it in NSE so I'm assuming the caption date of 1989 must be wrong.

 

Is anybody able to point me to a site that gives reliable dates for livery changes or  able to tell me of a black-roofed example that would have retained that livery post Feb 88, even if only for a couple of months.

 

Thanks in advance

Rob

[The Pilotman]

There may be more but 16 and 46 are definite candidates.

[43179]

Respectfully Richard, I disagree. 

 

The more I look at the front of the Dapol EPs the more I see the shape is wrong. I couldn't quite find a photo of the real thing at the same angle as a photo I took at TINGs, but even something close still highlights that the curve is very evident when a direct comparison is made.

 

 

The windscreens are too wide -  or the pillars are too narrow - ?  the headcode box weirdly doesn't look tall enough - that may be more down to the size/position of the horn grilles and lights -   and the cab roof doesn't seem bulbous enough , almost like the whole roof profile is too flat ,and therefore the transition between the cab roof and the bodysides/cantrail is too sharp -    its a right old mess  

Jon 

[Claude_Dreyfus]

As there are a number of knowledgeable class 50 experts on this thread  I'm hoping to get some livery advice.

 

I'm looking for a model suitable to run on a small china clay plank, ideally in a livery/name combination that could have been seen with both clayhoods and CDAs- my research seems to indicate that the key date for the main swop from hoods to CDAs was Feb88 with my source being John Vaughan's china clay books.

 

I'm not so much looking for an example that was definitely seen on such duties but would ideally like an example that could quite plausibly have been seen on them 

 

Am I right to think that such a class 50 would be most likely to be a Plymouth allocated example on a running in turn or light duties?

 

I think I've already identified that both the Large Logo and NSE liveried examples would be suitable, possibly with a new name/number but I'm finding myself more and more drawn to the black-roofed 50049.

 

I understand that this represents 50049 in recent preservation livery but, looking at pictures of, for example, 50003 in its 80s incarnation of the livery, the key elements of the livery, roof red buffer beam and cantrail stripe seem to be the same. Can anyone tell me if it is as simple as renumbering/naming to accurately portray a 80s black roof example?

 

In searching for pictures of black roof examples, I find plenty of pictures from 1987 so fine for the hoods, but nothing between then and summer/autumn 88 when every black roof 50 I have identified seems to have been repainted into NSE livery. I've searched a number of class 50 sites but haven't located any with clear dates for livery changes. I did find a picture of 50003 with the black roof with a caption of 1989 but many more dated 1988 with it in NSE so I'm assuming the caption date of 1989 must be wrong.

 

Is anybody able to point me to a site that gives reliable dates for livery changes or  able to tell me of a black-roofed example that would have retained that livery post Feb 88, even if only for a couple of months.

 

Thanks in advance

Rob

For a black roofed example, 50047 may be worth pursuing. I have seen a photo of it heading a rake of clay hoods (I think in the 'Life and Times' series) in the mid 80s, and it was withdrawn with a black roof, so that may be worth further investigation.

[jamespetts]

For livery/date research, nothing beats Flickr: just search for the locomotive number (with no spaces) and the year and you will find many pictures of that locomotive in that year.

[TomE]

The windscreens are too wide -  or the pillars are too narrow - ?  the headcode box weirdly doesn't look tall enough - that may be more down to the size/position of the horn grilles and lights -   and the cab roof doesn't seem bulbous enough , almost like the whole roof profile is too flat ,and therefore the transition between the cab roof and the bodysides/cantrail is too sharp -    its a right old mess

Jon 

 

The interface between the headcode box & roof is also wrong, with the angled edge on the model being concave instead of convex. It also seems the headcode box doesn't extend far enough to the rear, as evidenced by the much larger gap between rear edge and roof vent on the model. This may also contributing to the appearance of something being amiss with the whole roof/headcode box area. 

 

 

Sadly it seems much of the N Gauge community has whipped itself up into such a frenzy over the prospect of a shiny new Class 50 they have become blind to the gross errors pervading this model. My own initial impressions have been quickly shattered on closer inspection and for me it's a real disappointment after the excellent Class 68. And that's all I have to say about that. 

 

Tom. 

[Steadfast]

The windscreens are too wide - or the pillars are too narrow - ? the headcode box weirdly doesn't look tall enough - that may be more down to the size/position of the horn grilles and lights - and the cab roof doesn't seem bulbous enough , almost like the whole roof profile is too flat ,and therefore the transition between the cab roof and the bodysides/cantrail is too sharp - its a right old mess

Jon

If the windscreens are too wide and the roof is too flat, it's not suffering the same as the 56 is it? That is, the whole model is too wide?

Agree the top of the panel below the windscreens is curved, but not necessarily in the right places and quantities. Definitely something not right there. As Tom says, the initial wow factor has now subsided somewhat

 

Jo

[LBRJ]

The windscreens are too wide -  or the pillars are too narrow - ?  the headcode box weirdly doesn't look tall enough - that may be more down to the size/position of the horn grilles and lights -   and the cab roof doesn't seem bulbous enough , almost like the whole roof profile is too flat ,and therefore the transition between the cab roof and the bodysides/cantrail is too sharp -    its a right old mess

Jon 

Stop looking at it with a macro lens then..... To call it a right old mess literally makes me laugh out loud... its a 1:148 model !!

 

Digital photography for the masses has a lot to answer for 

[John M Upton]

As pretty much all of Dapol's output at some point finds its way onto their bargain page or the 'pile it high, sell it cheap' section of their stand at Ally Pally I am happy to wait it out and pick this up when its cheap.

[43179]

Hope you don't mind be drawing on and reposting your photo Tom

 

But something else to note -  on a real 50 the cantrail curve starts well below the level of the rainstrips and its visible on the windscreen pillars  - as highlighted in red -  luckily on that prototype photo the cab door is open which helps highlight this -  what i think is going on here is the cantrail curve is too tight and starts too high up the bodyside  -  as a result i think the flat portion of the bodyside is too tall , which in turn makes all the bodyside features look as though they're misplaced (the big louvres for example).  I can perhaps understand a need to not make the lower tumblehome as pronounced in order to fit the bodyshell over the chassis maybe , but combined with the cantrail curve being off it makes the whole model look a bit weird. 

Its not easy being a class 50 fan          

Edited October 18, 2018 by 43179

[Chris M]

If I want to spend hours comparing my model to an original I will go O gauge and have a class 50 running slowly up and down a short piece of track. In N gauge I run trains through scenery and I like the models to look right but they do not get close up scrutiny because they are running. In this context the new class 50 will be very good. It will be running on rails that are too high through bends that are too tight with a train which is too short (although 8 coaches looks about right to me) and have a ridiculously large coupling between it and the coaches. The coaches will all have a stupidly large gap between them. In this context the loco is very good. I always weather my locos gently, remove the front coupling and add front end detail. Its amazing how many people with model railways even at exhibitions don't do this. What I'm saying is this loco is perfectly fine for an N gauge loco and the use it is going to get. When I look in detail at the Dapol Western or Farish Warship there are a number of issues but they are still fine models and a very goo representation of the real thing.

[The Pilotman]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. For me, it boils down to this:

 

Whilst this is not a 100% accurate scale model of the real thing, I think the painted samples (nobody will be buying the EP after all) look very convincing to me, especially at “normal viewing distances”. I don’t know about anyone else, but if I look at an N gauge train running on a layout, I do not put my head right up to it and fixate on one small detail, but appreciate the train as a whole. If you want something that stands up to close scrutiny, larger scales are available. It’s not perfect, but it’s far from being a “right old mess”. If you don’t think it’s good enough, don’t buy it! It'll be a long wait for the next one to come along.

 

PS. It’s fine for people to point out errors on here but if you care enough about it, why not make those comments directly to Dapol as well? Several people, myself included, already have. These days it couldn’t be easier!

[TomE]

Stop looking at it with a macro lens then..... To call it a right old mess literally makes me laugh out loud... its a 1:148 model !!

 

Digital photography for the masses has a lot to answer for

 

If I want to spend hours comparing my model to an original I will go O gauge and have a class 50 running slowly up and down a short piece of track. In N gauge I run trains through scenery and I like the models to look right but they do not get close up scrutiny because they are running.

So you’re saying we should accept something that bares only a passing resemblance to what it is supposed to be, an accurate (and expensive) representation of the real thing, just because it’s small?! That is laughable. Actually no, it’s sad, and it sends completely the wrong message that manufacturers can toss out any old approximation of the prototype and N Gaugers just will lap it up. I thought the scale had moved on from that kind of attitude.

 

By this logic, perhaps Dapol should have done a CP1800, slapped on some large logo & NSE and put that out. Of course it wouldn’t matter it’s a class from another country, because at least it looks a bit like a 50 if you don’t look close enough.

 

Tom.

[MGR Hooper!]

Are any of the members here who are posting detailed paragraphs and images highlighting the errors actually taking the time and effort to do the same directly to Dapol via facebook or the Dapol Digest?

I'm not seeing any of these latest detailed posts anywhere on Dapol's Forums and/or facebook?

 

If no one wants to do that and wants to reserve their posts specifically for rmweb and moan about the errors, I'll be happy to compile a list of errors and forward it to some of the Dapol staff. I'm extremely happy to volunteer and as stated before compile a list of errors and forward them onto a member of the Dapol team. Please PM me with suitable notes and images and I shall format it and pass it on.

 

I agree the model has errors, personally it doesn't bother me because I recognize it as a Class 50, I'm not a rivet counter and I'm happy with something that looks like one and runs well. However people are entitled to their opinions and it's nice if it is put forth politely instead of bashing a brand. It's better to atleast forward your concerns to Dapol and live with the fact that you have than to sit and moan and bash all day long. If you make an effort and pass on your feedback to the right places, atleast you know you've done your part. Whether Dapol take your feedback or not and work on it is a different story.

 

So please, if you have some genuine feedback to give Dapol and if you just don't want to make an effort and pass it on and if you prefer bashing them here and showing off your knowledge, then please drop me a PM and I shall go the last mile and pass it onto Dapol.

Edited October 19, 2018 by MGR Hooper!

[Chris M]

So you’re saying we should accept something that bares only a passing resemblance to what it is supposed to be, an accurate (and expensive) representation of the real thing, just because it’s small?! That is laughable. Actually no, it’s sad, and it sends completely the wrong message that manufacturers can toss out any old approximation of the prototype and N Gaugers just will lap it up. I thought the scale had moved on from that kind of attitude.

 

By this logic, perhaps Dapol should have done a CP1800, slapped on some large logo & NSE and put that out. Of course it wouldn’t matter it’s a class from another country, because at least it looks a bit like a 50 if you don’t look close enough.

 

Tom.

Now you are going a bit far. I wasn't interested in the old Farish 50 because it didn't capture the look, likewise the old Farish Western.  I need a large Prairie for my steam era but won't buy a Farish one because it looks so wrong. This model may not be perfect but in my view it is as good as my Westerns and Warships and makes a perfectly good model for a reasonably good quality N gauge layout. I spend my time building layouts and running trains rather than spending hours analysing as to why any model is not quite perfect. Like I said, if I wanted to do that i would go O gauge. We do need to think of what is possible within the realms of the scale we are using and the need to have a reasonable price. I agree with some others here in that these comments would be better sent direct to Dapol rather than bashing them in public.  I'm can't see how this bashing helps the hobby or Dapol. As I alluded to a few pages ago there will be human beings at Dapol who have put hours and hours of their time into this model and will have a significant emotional investment in it. How do you think they will feel reading this? There is of course absolutely nothing stopping you from investing a load of your own time and money to make a perfect version...

[Chris M]

I would love to see photos of the layouts built by those who say this is a poor model posted on this thread. They will obviously be absolutely brilliantly accurate layouts in every way if this class 50 is poor or even “a right old mess” by their standards. I look forward to seeing what great N gauge modelling looks like.

[queensquare]

I would love to see photos of the layouts built by those who say this is a poor model posted on this thread. They will obviously be absolutely brilliantly accurate layouts in every way if this class 50 is poor or even “a right old mess” by their standards. I look forward to seeing what great N gauge modelling looks like.

 

Go and have a look at TomE's Ropley, its one of the best examples of what is possible in N gauge you will find anywhere.

 

Jerry

[Claude_Dreyfus]

I would love to see photos of the layouts built by those who say this is a poor model posted on this thread. They will obviously be absolutely brilliantly accurate layouts in every way if this class 50 is poor or even “a right old mess” by their standards. I look forward to seeing what great N gauge modelling looks like.

Sorry to see such a disingenuous post on here.

 

It appears to me these comments started from 'it looks wrong' and moved on from there trying to establish what was making it look wrong. The details may be minor, but if the impact is on the overall appearance, then there is an issue. If the bar is being set that level, then so be it; but it seems curious that with so many plans and lots of examples of the real thing knocking around that errors of this nature are being made.

 

Personally, I may get one in the future, but it is a real shame if there are errors obvious enough for the model to look wrong and these are not addressed; and an even greater shame if those who point these out are lambasted with 'lets see your modelling then'. With that attitude nothing changes and nothing improves. Pity.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Claude_Dreyfus

[woodenhead]

Another thread where opinions backed up with facts are slapped down.

 

It's quite simple - if you like it you like it, if you don't then you have the freedom to say it and if you back it up with an example then that is even better as it lets others decide if they can live with the issue (or not).

 

People should be and are entitled to opinions, it is the basis of a democratic society, one that seems to be decaying at the moment