Dapol 00 Gauge LSWR B4

[JSpencer]

Try this one, which I notice has been posted on the Dapol Digest site.

 

I can see the white line!

 

As the white lining was probably only 3/16" wide, at 4mm you would probably have to reproduce it over-scale, yet we have the Hornby and Oxford Radials in Adams green, showing how it can be done at 4mm to capture the appearance of the livery.

 

Also, look at the picture of No.90 in works grey next to the picture of the model.  Something seems to be awry in terms of the relationship between the top of the cab cut out and the black lining band.  One of the dimensions is out.  I don't know which, but it gives the impression of the cab cut-out being too high.

 

Now, to be fair, there has to be some compromise.  With the cut out, the cab beading might be over scale, and unavoidably so. If one element throws out another, it must be difficult to strike a balance and decide where to compromise. It's not an easy job, and we don't expect perfection!

Yep that is clearer. You do need to look closely but agree it is there. As for the cab, I guess the expense of doing a wooden would be too much, likewise a real cab is made from thin sheets which if scaled down, would disapear be ripped off if you touch it. A thick roof is unavoidable so either it sits a tad higher or the sides are a tad lower.

[Nile]

They've been mentioned a few times, but I've not seen any photos posted yet, of the alternative couplings that come with it.

 

I think the idea was to allow it to work around sharp curves. The problem is the loco has a close coupling mechanism with a soft spring, which means when it pulls a wagon this happens.

It needs a fixed socket to work properly.

[No Decorum]

They've been mentioned a few times, but I've not seen any photos posted yet, of the alternative couplings that come with it.

01.JPG

 

I think the idea was to allow it to work around sharp curves. The problem is the loco has a close coupling mechanism with a soft spring, which means when it pulls a wagon this happens.

02.JPG

It needs a fixed socket to work properly.

 

Exactly! Thank you for saving me the trouble of taking pictures. 

[stonetown]

The problem is the loco has a close coupling mechanism with a soft spring, [...].

 

Anytime I prefer a close coupling mechanism over these strange oblongs.

 

But was it ever mentioned or somewhere advertised the B4s having a close coupling mechanism? Somehow that must have passed me. But that´s really great to hear, makes it even harder to wait until my pair arrives.    

[JSpencer]

They've been mentioned a few times, but I've not seen any photos posted yet, of the alternative couplings that come with it.

01.JPG

 

I think the idea was to allow it to work around sharp curves. The problem is the loco has a close coupling mechanism with a soft spring, which means when it pulls a wagon this happens.

02.JPG

It needs a fixed socket to work properly.

It is the first time I,ve seen this system. Clearly you will need to glue the coupling pocket in place so it no longer waggles side to side.

 

Not sure I see any real benefit of these over normal tension locks except possibly closer coupling on sharp radiuses, but as your photos show, the wagon is not particularly or prototypically close.

I can not see myself swapping the couplings out on these locos, but if I were it would be for Kadees or screw/3 links. Nice thought but maybe not needed (and the option does not harm the model in anyway).

 

I find the B4 better than the Sentinal and well tank so the Terrier should be a treat. I would buy a third B4 but the P class came along and the Bluebell have 3 of those vs 1 B4 and I,m biased towards the south east. Still if Dapol did a Drummond boiler version....

Edited June 8, 2018 by JSpencer

[No Decorum]

It is the first time I,ve seen this system. Clearly you will need to glue the coupling pocket in place so it no longer waggles side to side.

 

Not sure I see any real benefit of these over normal tension locks except possibly closer coupling on sharp radiuses, but as your photos show, the wagon is not particularly or prototypically close.

I can not see myself swapping the couplings out on these locos, but if I were it would be for Kadees or screw/3 links. Nice thought but maybe not needed (and the option does not harm the model in anyway).

 

I find the B4 better than the Sentinal and well tank so the Terrier should be a treat. I would buy a third B4 but the P class came along and the Bluebell have 3 of those vs 1 B4 and I,m biased towards the south east. Still if Dapol did a Drummond boiler version....

 

I only have the original Well Tank. I don’t think it’s in the top league. I remain delighted by Model Rail’s Sentinel (and I’m agog at the depictions of the forthcoming 0 gauge version). At first I was delighted by Hornby’s Sentinel; it came out as Hornby was recovering from the foot wound which was “Design Clever”. I still think it’s good but it does fall a little short – there’s a clunkiness about it and the plating wears off the wheels very quickly. I budgeted for two B4s and on the strengths of those added Normandy. I only managed a quick “does it work” test when it arrived and had my first chance to run it properly last night. Its running would do credit to a model with twice as many wheels and the detail is exquisite. Dammit, I’ve now joined Dapol’s club to get the LSWR one. No matter, Edwardian, that white lining is missing.

 

I am going to have to sign myself into a financial correction institution, where I shall sit staring at the padded walls with a silly grin on my face. Lovely little models.

[Dunsignalling]

I use Kadees and have fitted a pair of #19 heads, along with a little paper packing to bring them to the correct height.

 

However, I am dubious as to the wisdom of fitting CCUs to a shunting loco that will spend half its time pushing things. The spring is clearly too weak to prevent the coupler being pushed out of line under those circumstances, exactly as illustrated in Nile's post #452, leading to probable buffer locking.

 

CCUs only deliver their full benefit when used in conjunction with couplers that lock together rigidly (Roco etc.).

 

If using tension lock couplers, I'd suggest fitting just the "D" of a medium (R8267) or large (R8268) Hornby one and locking up the CCU.

 

John

Edited June 9, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Graham_Muz]

I have some initial thoughts and a few images of the Dapol B4s on  my blog here https://grahammuz.com/2018/06/09/off-to-the-ace-and-few-pictures-b4-i-go/ 

 

 

Although not stated on my blog No.88 arrived with the bracket between the cylinders broken so they duly fell out along with slidebars and piston rods when I removed from the box but rather than return to the shop which is tricky due to travelling overseas this weekend I fixed her myself and she runs ok now.

[No Decorum]

I have some initial thoughts and a few images of the Dapol B4s on  my blog here

 

Although not stated on my blog No.88 arrived with the bracket between the cylinders broken so they duly fell out along with slidebars and piston rods when I removed from the box but rather than return to the shop which is tricky due to travelling overseas this weekend I fixed her myself and she runs ok now.

Yes, the points made in the blog are valid, particularly the holes interpreted as rivets. The transfers on the smokebox door passed me by because I haven’t indulged myself in a BR version. They are below the standard I would expect these days. However, despite a dunking in cold water, I have bobbed to the surface and remain delighted. I think it’s the running quality – that always charms me. Thank you for a little objectivity and enjoy your holiday!

[No Decorum]

I use Kadees and have fitted a pair of #19 heads, along with a little paper packing to bring them to the correct height.

 

However, I am dubious as to the wisdom of fitting CCUs to a shunting loco that will spend half its time pushing things. The spring is clearly too weak to prevent the coupler being pushed out of line under those circumstances, exactly as illustrated in Nile's post #452, leading to probable buffer locking.

 

CCUs only deliver their full benefit when used in conjunction with couplers that lock together rigidly (Roco etc.).

 

If using tension lock couplers, I'd suggest fitting just the "D" of a medium (R8267) or large (R8268) Hornby one and locking up the CCU.

 

John

 

Like you, I am dubious. If the spring of a CCU is weak enough to deflect when pulling, then it would seem that it’s weak enough to deflect whilst pushing, with undesirable results. Others will know better than I do, because I laid my track to 6' radius, but I wonder how necessary a CCU is on short locos and wagons. Kadees are excellent, to a great extent due to the provision of four different lengths of swallow tail. Where a loco is likely to be coupled to vehicles which are not equipped with Kadees (Kadees are expensive!) I like to use Bachmann short couplers.

[SRman]

Yes, the points made in the blog are valid, particularly the holes interpreted as rivets. The transfers on the smokebox door passed me by because I haven’t indulged myself in a BR version. They are below the standard I would expect these days. However, despite a dunking in cold water, I have bobbed to the surface and remain delighted. I think it’s the running quality – that always charms me. Thank you for a little objectivity and enjoy your holiday!

  

I was going to order an early BR version, but the smokebox door number transfers put me off a bit - I know I could have made up a number plate and reinstated the numbers, but that was just the thing that broke the deal for me. I then looked at Normandy and its lovely primitive cab, so ordered that one instead.

 

I ordered it DCC-fitted, forgetting that I had ordered a couple of CT Elektroniks decoders, one of which would have been absolutely ideal for this locomotive. They are DCX74zD types, pictured below (I took the pic because of a query on another forum).

 

IMG_20180609_164405 by Jeffrey Lynn, on Flickr

Edited June 9, 2018 by SRman

[Ian J.]

Regarding the smokebox door number and shed plates. Can someone advise me who does appropriate etched brass ones? Either 30096 and/or 30093, with a shed plate for Bournemouth circa 1960, IIRC.

[adb968008]

Regarding the smokebox door number and shed plates. Can someone advise me who does appropriate etched brass ones? Either 30096 and/or 30093, with a shed plate for Bournemouth circa 1960, IIRC.

Railtec do water slide, so you make your own numbers.

Just put a bit of black paint on a piece of card, add the numbers, cut and fit.

[Dunsignalling]

Regarding the smokebox door number and shed plates. Can someone advise me who does appropriate etched brass ones? Either 30096 and/or 30093, with a shed plate for Bournemouth circa 1960, IIRC.

The real things were commonly cast iron IIRC. 

 

247 Developments do a full range of shed plates and a couple of B4 numbers (including 30093). These will no doubt increase with the release of these locos.

 

If the ones I have are anything to go by, they are etched in nickel silver unless the prototype plates were brass (e.g. older and/or more prestigious GWR classes) 

 

John

Edited June 9, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[The Dorset Wanderer]

Narrow Planet also do sets of smokebox numberplates and shed codes.

Satisfied customer in several scales.

https://shop.narrowplanet.co.uk/collections/custom-etched-products/products/npp-416

[colin.divall]

I had a look at a few pics online of 30093 and indeed it appears it only ever had early logo right up to scrapping in 1960. I could wait for Dapol to do 30093 of course, which might happen in a later batch.

There are several pics of 30093 in Colin Stone's Rails to Poole Harbour (Oakwood 2007), including a very useful one of the rear at p.132. The only obvious difference I can see between 96 and 93, crest aside, is that 93 had a semi-circular extension to the rear cabsheet, which I assume was to give a bit more room to work the handbrake without taking the skin of one's knuckles. Doesn't look as though it'll be too hard to remove that from the model - which is what I certainly intend to do....

 

Colin

[colin.divall]

There are several pics of 30093 in Colin Stone's Rails to Poole Harbour (Oakwood 2007), including a very useful one of the rear at p.132. The only obvious difference I can see between 96 and 93, crest aside, is that 93 had a semi-circular extension to the rear cabsheet, which I assume was to give a bit more room to work the handbrake without taking the skin of one's knuckles. Doesn't look as though it'll be too hard to remove that from the model - which is what I certainly intend to do....

 

Colin

Whoops - I meant, of course, that 96 had the handbrake extension to the sheet, as per the model, whereas 93 didn't...

 

C.

[Butler Henderson]

Not an issue for my Normandy obviously but on the subject of the smokebox numberplate would it not need a backing panel at either end to counter for the curve of the smokebox door - if anyone is approaching Narrow Planet might be worth seeing if they could etch the number plate wider than it is with a couple of half etch lines allowing for the extension pieces to be bent back.

[railtec-models]

Railtec do water slide, so you make your own numbers.

Just put a bit of black paint on a piece of card, add the numbers, cut and fit.

 

Actually there are more options than that. For a while we've been offering "complete steam loco pack with number and shed code of your choice" :

 

http://www.railtec-models.com/catalog.php?search_str=complete+steam+loco

 

The "pack" includes ready-made cab side numbers as traditional 2d waterslide (or 3d plates in the case of GWR locos), 3d smokebox plate i.e. so both the plate itself and numbers are raised just like the real thing, 3d shed code, power classification (if applicable) and choice of small/medium/large crests either both left-facing or left/right facing - all in the one pack. No filing off any sprue, everything is ready-painted and no lining up of individual digits; it's the perfect convenience of both the normal 2d transfers and matching 3d pieces.

Edited June 10, 2018 by railtec-models

[Butler Henderson]

Just got my SPROG working again after the latest W10 update and find Decoder Pro is reporting the fitted decoder in my Normandy as being an otherwise unidentified Gamemaster product giving the following non zero /255 CV values

 

1=3, 7=51, 8=65, 29=6, 33=1, 34=2, 35=4, 36=8, 37=16, 38=4, 56=80, 57=6, 67=8 and then an increase by 9 to 94=251, 115=2, 116=4, 120=15 

[Butler Henderson]

Presumably they can take a 10.6mm long decoder despite what the manual says as whilst unidentified by Decoder Pro the CV7 value of 51 is that of the Digitrax DZ125IN which is the same decoder as the Gaugemaster DCC23.

[NHY 581]

Here's my second B4 settling in. Once again, as per the first, excellent runner straight from the box.

 

Rob.

[Tim Dubya]

Whipped mine out this avo, broken handrail and wonky toolbox but all repairable. Incredible slow runner straight outta the box more than makes up for it!

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by Tim Dubya

[PaulRhB]

B4 defence train

Well a two day show and it ran faultlessly so well done Dapol

Edited June 10, 2018 by PaulRhB

[Spannerman]

Dapol certainly seem to have a problem with the packaging not being up to the job. Great model but arrived with a sandbox and rear lamp iron floating around inside. Still nothing that can't be glued on.

 

Nik