N gauge Class 50

[WesternKing]

Just been on the Dapol website & the 50's have now been put back to 4th quarter 2015, so that's October at the earliest! :-/

[woodenhead]

Something to buy at Warley then.

[Roy L S]

According to the Website they are "awaiting tooling". With the best will in the world by the time they have got from tooling to 1st EP and through the process to decorated samples, production and shipping a Q4 release looks pretty optimistic to me.

 

Roy

[PaulCheffus]

According to the Website they are "awaiting tooling". With the best will in the world by the time they have got from tooling to 1st EP and through the process to decorated samples, production and shipping a Q4 release looks pretty optimistic to me.

 

Roy

 

Hi

 

Just like the 56s that originally said September 2014 then Q1 2015 are now showing as Q2 2015.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[scruff]

I don't suppose Dapol said anything about the progress of the 50 at Ally Pally today?

 

Cheers

Mark

[cornish trains jez]

There was a primed class 50 body shell on the Dapol stand at Warley yesterday. Could mean that they are nearing finalising the body shell details.

[Gerald Henriksen]

Actually, it was (according to this post) a 3D print - picture included:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/105484-news-summary-from-warley-2015/&do=findComment&comment=2110426

[scruff]

Guys and Dolls.. Dapol have published the latest CAD drawings on their Dapol digest forum and have asked for constructive feedback before this CAD is committed to tooling.. So any Class 50 guru's amongst us, can you please have a good look at these drawings and see if we can help Dapol make their Class 50 better than the Dapol western. 

 

I've been playing spot the difference with photo's but I'm sure there are some on here who know far more than me..

 

Cheers

Mark

 

link to class 50 page- https://digest.Dapol.co.uk/forum/n-gauge-models/diesel/class-50-n/project-managers-blog-al/309-n-gauge-class-50-development

[MGR Hooper!]

Guys and Dolls.. Dapol have published the latest CAD drawings on their Dapol digest forum and have asked for constructive feedback before this CAD is committed to tooling.. So any Class 50 guru's amongst us, can you please have a good look at these drawings and see if we can help Dapol make their Class 50 better than the Dapol western. 

 

I've been playing spot the difference with photo's but I'm sure there are some on here who know far more than me..

 

Cheers

Mark

 

link to class 50 page- https://digest.Dapol.co.uk/forum/n-gauge-models/diesel/class-50-n/project-managers-blog-al/309-n-gauge-class-50-development

Indeed...and if anyone has advice but doesn't want to join another forum for any reason, please post here and let someone here pass it on.

[Steve Purves]

Looks good

Edited June 25, 2016 by 47845

[Robert Shrives]

Hi ,

CADS look better than before and having had chance for my ten pence worth a while back along with a  help from class 50 friends on SVR hopefully not any major howlers but a lot can happen between UK , China and back again!

 

Robert   

[Crepello]

Wow they do look good--hopefully the long wait will be worth it.

[Davexoc]

Indeed...and if anyone has advice but doesn't want to join another forum for any reason, please post here and let someone here pass it on.

The middle engine room window appears too near No.2 end. The cant rail grille next to it is wrong, too deep and possibly too short, its rain strip should end between battery box and fuel tank. But if you move that then there is something wrong with the roof panels??

Something that most locos had done to stop divert resistors burning out for the radiator fan at some time in their life, was two of the upper louvres were set partially open to ensure some airflow when the rest were shut. Worth recreating or not?

Apart from that and the sloping route idicators and MW jumpers already noted, looking good.

 

Dave

[MGR Hooper!]

The middle engine room window appears too near No.2 end. The cant rail grille next to it is wrong, too deep and possibly too short, its rain strip should end between battery box and fuel tank. But if you move that then there is something wrong with the roof panels??

Something that most locos had done to stop divert resistors burning out for the radiator fan at some time in their life, was two of the upper louvres were set partially open to ensure some airflow when the rest were shut. Worth recreating or not?

Apart from that and the sloping route idicators and MW jumpers already noted, looking good.

 

Dave

Thanks hopefully someone can pass it on. However I think many of your observations were already noted.

[NickL2008]

Not sure if its just me, or the roof looks a little flat? also the taillights look too far recessed inwards as well

 

NL

[WesternKing]

Hatton's still showing them as being in stock between October & December 2016, rather optimistic I'd say?

[43179]

Not sure if its just me, or the roof looks a little flat? also the taillights look too far recessed inwards as well

 

NL

I agree, there's something not quite right in that area - the curve of the cantrail seems to start too far up the bodysides and/or is far too sharp. The cantrail grille towards the no2 end of the loco should have a gentle curve throughout. On the CAD its got a sharp 'kink' in the middle.  The cabside windows and the cab door windows look too deep - easy to spot if you look at how they relate to the bottoms on the windscreens on the real thing.  The rain strips should drop towards the ends of the loco but they appear horizontal on the CAD -  that in turn will affect the position of the cab side windows. The rain strips also determine the correct shape and position of the windscreens. If you fudge things up in those areas it then makes livery application a bit awkward.  Somehow there is not enough space between the rain strip and the top of the bodyside louvres -  it suggests the tops of the louvres are too high up the bodyside (are they too tall perhaps), along with the windows, as a result of the cantrail/roof curve being wrong. The the 50s  tumblehome doesn't seem prominent enough on the CAD , and neither does the ledge below the windscreens. It still looks a little flat fronted like the old Farish one 

I'm not sure I like the look of the CAD at all I'm afraid - and that's before even thinking about how you'd then get a stripey livery - NSE for example,   to sit on the model correctly if everything on the bodyside is in the wrong place. 

 

Jon 

[Tricky-CRS]

Have you joined the Dapol digest and passed on your thoughts / knowledge?

[oreamnos]

I am by no means an expert and perhaps it is just the angle of the CADs but to my eyes there are two very glaring problems:

 

1.) The lower body sides don't tuck under except directly behind the buffer beams and that is incorrect.  There should be a tumblehome the whole length of the body with the area directly behind the buffer beams being even more pronounced.

2.) The tops of the roof indicator boxes are slanted at angle so that they are higher at their ends than at their roots.  The roofs of these boxes should be parallel to the roof and cantrail of the body proper.

 

The bogies also appear to be too close to the ends of the body and the NEM boxes seem to stick way out past the buffer beams - perhaps it is the prominent NEM boxes by themselves which are making the bogies look they way they do?

 

I hate to say it but I am disappointed with the CADs.

 

Matt

Edited August 24, 2016 by oreamnos

[Tricky-CRS]

I am by no means an expert and perhaps it is just the angle of the CADs but to my eyes there are two very glaring problems:

 

1.) The lower body sides don't tuck under except directly behind the buffer beams and that is incorrect.  There should be a tumblehome the whole length of the body with the area directly behind the buffer beams being even more pronounced.

2.) The tops of the roof indicator boxes are slanted at angle so that they are higher at their ends than at their roots.  The roofs of these boxes should be parallel to the roof and cantrail of the body proper.

 

The bogies also appear to be too close to the ends of the body and the NEM boxes seem to stick way out past the buffer beams - perhaps it is the prominent NEM boxes by themselves which are making the bogies look they way they do?

 

I hate to say it but I am disappointed with the CADs.

 

Matt

Have you shared this with Dapol via Dapol Digest? That is the only place to raise these concerns.

[Andy Y]

That is the only place to raise these concerns.

 

People can raise concerns wherever they wish to and not just where you say they can only do so, be it their own site, forums or Dapol's own site. Maybe there's a higher chance of someone in a position of responsibility seeing it if it's posted there but a member can choose to discuss their perspectives with other members here if they wish to do so.

[Tricky-CRS]

But if they want the model to be correct this is not the place, to end with disappointed with CADs is a shame. I am a massive fan of the class 50 so if something is wrong I want it reported and corrected,is that not fair?

[oreamnos]

Have you shared this with Dapol via Dapol Digest? That is the only place to raise these concerns.

 

Where I choose to voice opinions about a model is my choice.  It is also not my responsibility to ensure a model is correct.  That responsibility lies wholly with the manufacturer.  If the powers-that-be at Dapol had any sense they'd be monitoring forums such as this one rather than apparently demanding people post comments on its proprietary site. (I've no idea if that is true or not, but I'd hope not.)

 

The box-shifter discounted price for this model is currently about £120 which is up from £100 when it was first announced (how many ages ago?).  At that price, Dapol should be pulling out the stops to get this model correct.  However, if it cannot be bothered (and I'm not saying it can't; I don't know) to take advantage of the comments by enthusiasts who do not wish to join "Dapol Digest" then let it reap what it sows.

 

If someone who sees the comments posted in this forum believes they have merit, they are certainly free to reiterate them on Dapol Digest.

 

Matt

Edited August 24, 2016 by oreamnos

[Tricky-CRS]

Where I choose to voice opinions about a model is my choice.  It is also not my responsibility to ensure a model is correct.  That responsibility lies wholly with the manufacturer.  If the powers-that-be at Dapol had any sense they'd be monitoring forums such as this one rather than apparently demanding people post comments on its proprietary site. (I've no idea if that is true or not, but I'd hope not.)

 

The box-shifter discounted price for this model is currently about £120 which is up from £100 when it was first announced (how many ages ago?).  At that price, Dapol should be pulling out the stops to get this model correct.  However, if it cannot be bothered (and I'm not saying it can't; I don't know) to take advantage of the comments by enthusiasts who do not wish to join "Dapol Digest" then let it reap what it sows.

 

If someone who sees the comments posted in this forum believes they have merit, they are certainly free to reiterate them on Dapol Digest.

Matt

Fine Matt I hope we all get the model we want.

[oreamnos]

Well, the model I want doesn't cost 120 quid! 

I hope Dapol get it right, too, but if not, the marketplace will surely take its course.

 

Matt