N gauge Class 50

[Steadfast]

The rather large gap around the removable roof section jumps out too. Would've been better perhaps to have the switches under the fuel tank?

 

Jo

[MGR Hooper!]

1 hour ago, Steadfast said:

The rather large gap around the removable roof section jumps out too. Would've been better perhaps to have the switches under the fuel tank?

 

Jo

 

Switches and a hatch for a DCC chip are two difft things. The hatch on the roof is for a DCC chip. Apparently to make it easier.

 

Also remember on a screen, things are magnified a lot. The gap won't look so big in real life.

[grahame]

16 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

Also remember on a screen, things are magnified a lot. The gap won't look so big in real life.

 

Yes, in real life it is not a particularly large gap or especially noticeable. Probably it is more obvious when viewed in comparison with the other roof hatches that the edge becomes a little more noticeable (although not massively so). And, of course, the real roof hatches and panels are designed to open or be removable.

 

The light control switches are on the PCB inside and to access them you need to remove the body (not the roof engine room cover). Getting the body off wasn't difficult and can be undertaken carefully without tools (no screws to undo) and just using your fingernails.

[Zunnan]

4 minutes ago, grahame said:

The light control switches are on the PCB inside and to access them you need to remove the body (not the roof engine room cover). Getting the body off wasn't difficult and can be undertaken carefully without tools (no screws to undo) and just using your fingernails.

 

I'm all for access panels when done right, they're a godsend with US outline where the dynamic brake blister is usually the access. This however strikes me as a nice idea but a little bit on the poorly thought out side. Surely the lights are the feature most likely to (perhaps repeatedly) require easy access rather than to get at the DCC chip.

[TomJ]

Forgive me if this is a daft question. A well known Merseyside retailer had the large logo in stock. One of the options at purchasing is DCC fitting. 

 

There are also DCC fitted locos not yet in stock, and a few pounds cheaper than the retailer DCC options. 

 

Is is there a difference between these options and should I wait for the DCC fitted version

[Padishar Creel]

9 hours ago, grahame said:

 

It's probably just three issues that I not so much dislike but that I'm less that fully enamoured with. Sure, it is possible to be picky about a lot of things (as with most models) but for most you'd need to look closely and carefully compare with the real thing. I'll probably mention some of these other things in a review I'm writing for the DEMU UPDate magazine. Nonetheless, overall, the model looks like a class 50 and is a vast improvement over the old Farish model. And there are a whole host of niceties added (like pre-fitted buffer beam details and both refurbished and earlier options available).

 

For me the three eminently obvious issues are: (1) The lower body side tuck in/under - it looks far too insufficiently angled (like the class 142?) making the bodysides look very slab-like over their complete height. Look at the side of the NSE version in my photo above. (2) The multiple control jumper receptacle is not boxy enough - it looks like the wrong type has been fitted. (3) The lower bodyside (lifting?) eyelet lugs are very malnourished - these should obviously protrude. The pic below shows how the jumper receptacle should look, the extent of lower tumblehome tuck-under and how the lugs protrude:

 

 

However, please don't let me put you off buying a model. They are very nice and it's a matter of individuals making up their own mind.

 

G

 

 

 

 

Regarding the multiple control jumper itself, Dapol never corrected the position of the sockets on the left of the cab front on the refurbished version, despite getting It correct on the original version.

These errors were pointed out months ago on the Dapol Digest Forum. I always find that design mistakes on the cab stick out far more than mistakes elsewhere.

 

es grüßt 

pc

[grahame]

6 minutes ago, Padishar Creel said:

 

Regarding the multiple control jumper itself, Dapol never corrected the position of the sockets on the left of the cab front on the refurbished version, despite getting It correct on the original version.

These errors were pointed out months ago on the Dapol Digest Forum. I always find that design mistakes on the cab stick out far more than mistakes elsewhere.

 

 

On the model they are pretty much all in a straight line. If you look at the pic of the front end of a real 50 (that I posted earlier on the previous page) the centre one is a tad higher. In N gauge we would be talking about a very small fraction of a mil. For me it's not as detracting as the three issues I pointed out but it could be corrected by carefully cutting it off and relocating a little higher. However, I'm not sure the effort would be worth the benefit.

[njee20]

Anyone know if the larger Zimo MX658 sound decoder will fit? Or is it just the MX659?

[Les1952]

On 08/09/2019 at 09:15, grahame said:

 

It's probably just three issues that I not so much dislike but that I'm less that fully enamoured with. 

 

For me the three eminently obvious issues are: (1) The lower body side tuck in/under - it looks far too insufficiently angled (like the class 142?) making the bodysides look very slab-like over their complete height. Look at the side of the NSE version in my photo above.

 

 

However, please don't let me put you off buying a model. They are very nice and it's a matter of individuals making up their own mind.

 

G

 

 

 

 

Just a thought about the bodyside tuck-under. If it were fully to size would it actually be possible to get the body off?  Alternately would that make the chassis much narrower and therefore the model a lot less heavy and thus less powerful?  It is a fine line between 100% fidelity and something that catually actually works....

 

Les

 

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Les1952
typo

[grahame]

24 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

 

Just a thought about the bodyside tuck-under. If it were fully to size would it actually be possible to get the body off?  Alternately would that make the chassis much narrower and therefore the model a lot less heavy and thus less powerful?  It is a fine line between 100% fidelity and something that catually works.... 

 

 

It would be a matter of designing it so you could take the body off - it'd be a bit silly to produce a model where you couldn't. And the distance necessary to reduce the chassis width is marginal so a slightly narrower chassis wouldn't be a 'a lot less heavy'. Besides there's plenty of space to add extra weight if necessary on the underside between the equipment mouldings either end of the fuel tank. I'd have thought the width to accommodate the motor was more of an issue but there appears to be sufficient room either chassis side to reduce each side by 0.5mm. But I guess it's a moot point - we are where we are with the model now.

Edited September 8, 2019 by grahame

[steam-driven boy]

Hi,

Had a little more time with my 50, removed the roof panel with the aid of a plastic tool and had a play with the cab light switching which I finally set to off and replaced the panel.

The replaced panel remains unobtrusive and I doubt I'll feel the need to repeat the procedure so it shouldn't become something my eye will be drawn to.

 

Regards, Gerry.

[MGR Hooper!]

On 07/09/2019 at 17:11, steam-driven boy said:

Hi,

Dapol Collectors Club 50007 arrived this morning, another of my rather dodgy snaps - sorry:

Comprehensive instruction booklet, roof panel access to control lights for us non-dcc-ers.

Regards, Gerry.

Any more pictures of the model (quality not an issue)?

[steam-driven boy]

2 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Any more pictures of the model (quality not an issue)?

Hi,

If nobody else puts up some better ones I'll gladly oblige tomorrow if that's ok, things have become very 'interesting times' in the last few days...

 

 

Snappery not getting any better...  As noted by yourself, grahame and in my previous post the pictures over-emphasize the roof panel.

 

Regards, Gerry.

Edited September 9, 2019 by steam-driven boy
piccies after all

[Paul80]

Looks like you have been lucky and not got one of the Edward Elgars with the faulty grey paint job on the roof.

[37058]

33 minutes ago, Paul80 said:

Looks like you have been lucky and not got one of the Edward Elgars with the faulty grey paint job on the roof.

I have a 007 and sadly I think they're all grey. Nothing a quick mask and a spray of satin black wont sort out...

 

Cheers

Anthony 

[TomE]

I've only had time to take mine out of the box to have a quick glance over it and it is an impressive looking thing when you first get it on the layout. However, closer examination reveals that, sadly, all of the errors highlighted here, elsewhere and directly to Dapol are still present in the production models. The cab front is too wide as a result of insufficient taper from the rear of the cab doors forward which stretches out the front end and thus the head code box making that look too flat & elongated. Also the cab front windows are still too square on the corners and are too flat across the front. The jumper cables are still at the wrong heights and the front step hole is still undersized giving it a rather odd pouting appearance. I'm not convinced by the fuel tank either, it seems to be a bit on the wide side? 

 

I'm sure non of this will bother most N Gauge modellers, and it's obviously light years ahead of the old Farish model, but if you were hoping for the definitive Class 50 in N Gauge I'm afraid the wait continues if you can't get hold of the CJM version. I don't have a chip for mine at the moment so can't comment on the running. 

 

I should also say I'm not overly enamoured with the quality of the paint finish on mine either, with noticeable paint ridges where the different elements of the NSE scheme overlap. Colour wise the blue also seems a bit on the light side to me. The angles of the red and blue upsweeps on the cab ends are not the same either, so the white gets thinner towards the bottom of the cab side windows where it should stay the same width, not that this is too much of a problem as I'll be repainting it into the later scheme anyway. 

 

All in all it's exactly what I expected, and for me is in no danger of knocking the class 68 off the top spot in Dapol's range. 

 

 

I'll try and get some better close up photos another day. 

 

Tom.  

[jamespetts]

Lovely photograph!

[MGR Hooper!]

11 hours ago, steam-driven boy said:

Hi,

If nobody else puts up some better ones I'll gladly oblige tomorrow if that's ok, things have become very 'interesting times' in the last few days...

 

 

Snappery not getting any better...  As noted by yourself, grahame and in my previous post the pictures over-emphasize the roof panel.

 

Regards, Gerry.

 

The grey area on the roof is lower on one side as compared to the other? Or am I just being visually tricked here??

 

If the prototype's roof is black, I can fix that in a matter of minutes. Though it means I'll have to incorrectly bring the black a little lower down.

[MGR Hooper!]

3 hours ago, TomE said:

I've only had time to take mine out of the box to have a quick glance over it and it is an impressive looking thing when you first get it on the layout. However, closer examination reveals that, sadly, all of the errors highlighted here, elsewhere and directly to Dapol are still present in the production models. The cab front is too wide as a result of insufficient taper from the rear of the cab doors forward which stretches out the front end and thus the head code box making that look too flat & elongated. Also the cab front windows are still too square on the corners and are too flat across the front. The jumper cables are still at the wrong heights and the front step hole is still undersized giving it a rather odd pouting appearance. I'm not convinced by the fuel tank either, it seems to be a bit on the wide side? 

 

I'm sure non of this will bother most N Gauge modellers, and it's obviously light years ahead of the old Farish model, but if you were hoping for the definitive Class 50 in N Gauge I'm afraid the wait continues if you can't get hold of the CJM version. I don't have a chip for mine at the moment so can't comment on the running. 

 

I should also say I'm not overly enamoured with the quality of the paint finish on mine either, with noticeable paint ridges where the different elements of the NSE scheme overlap. Colour wise the blue also seems a bit on the light side to me. The angles of the red and blue upsweeps on the cab ends are not the same either, so the white gets thinner towards the bottom of the cab side windows where it should stay the same width, not that this is too much of a problem as I'll be repainting it into the later scheme anyway. 

 

All in all it's exactly what I expected, and for me is in no danger of knocking the class 68 off the top spot in Dapol's range. 

 

 

I'll try and get some better close up photos another day. 

 

Tom.  

 

Does it have white lining on the wheels? Or is that extra shiny metal?

[Paul80]

4 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

The grey area on the roof is lower on one side as compared to the other? Or am I just being visually tricked here??

 

If the prototype's roof is black, I can fix that in a matter of minutes. Though it means I'll have to incorrectly bring the black a little lower down.

That's what I thought as well

 

Dapol on their forum suggested sending any with the masking error back to the supplier for replacement, in the case of 007 that would be Dapol themselves.

 

Have they improved on the glue used to hold the handrails on, as their class 68 was plagued with them falling of, even during transport from the factory, with many on display in shops with one or two handrails sitting at the bottom of the box. Is this an issue with the 50 or have they improved on their glue or glue application method for this model.

[TomE]

5 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

Does it have white lining on the wheels? Or is that extra shiny metal?

 

Its white lining around the rims, correct for the NSE version. 

 

Tom. 

[steam-driven boy]

5 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

The grey area on the roof is lower on one side as compared to the other? Or am I just being visually tricked here??

 

If the prototype's roof is black, I can fix that in a matter of minutes. Though it means I'll have to incorrectly bring the black a little lower down.

Hi again,

Yes, in the photo it's quite clearly wrong - time to take a trip to the Post Office...

It's much harder to discern with the eye, but it goes back.

 

Regards, Gerry.

[Les1952]

14 hours ago, steam-driven boy said:

Hi again,

Yes, in the photo it's quite clearly wrong - time to take a trip to the Post Office...

It's much harder to discern with the eye, but it goes back.

 

Regards, Gerry.

 

That will be another one for next year's NQP scrum.  I've picked up plenty of locos at the Dapol open day that have nothing wrong with them beyond a paint error.....

 

One man's "not good enough" makes another person's bargain.

 

Les

 

 

[StuartM]

I'd be interested to know how this model runs
I was disappointed with the Westerns which were beautiful models but had none concentric wheels leading to wobble when running

I wonder if the new class 50 is the same?

[bingley hall]

9 hours ago, StuartM said:

I'd be interested to know how this model runs
I was disappointed with the Westerns which were beautiful models but had none concentric wheels leading to wobble when running

I wonder if the new class 50 is the same?

 

The benchmark would surely be a one year old 68 class release rather than a 10 year old Western?