Jump to content

Dapol 00 Gauge LSWR B4


ndg910
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Mike,

 

The crews were not happy with the open cabs, so in December 1899 No.102 GRANVILLE had the drivers side cut-out plated over, whilst the other locos were gradually received the same treatment including GUERNSEY. I am attaching a picture circa 1920 at Southampton docks (photo coptright to Rail Archive, Stephenson)

001.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, mikesndbs said:

 

I think they are lovely, something that would not have been possible for most of us, the running qualities for an 0-4-0 are remarkable, the detail stunning and I enjoy seeing the flickering firebox very much  tractive effort for a light loco is also a surprise. I'd like to lock down the dates on Guernsey however? I wanted her to represent the locos from delivery to pre grouping so 1893-1920 (ish)  Can I say that with any degree of confidence?

 

Yes, I think they're lovely, that's why I bought one!

 

The running qualities are superb.

 

In terms of Guernsey's condition, the model seems to me to be intended to reflect the 1893 onward condition, when 176 and its sister engine became the first pair named, re-liveried and given cab cut-outs for dock work. Richard has kindly confirmed that is indeed the condition it is intended to represent.

 

There are some details on  the model that do not conform to this condition perfectly. I note these without criticism or complaint.  I accept that the tooling suite must have sensible limitations - as Richard knows, I have some insight into the economics of production - and, therefore, I make no complaint there.  So, we have vac stands fitted because the buffer beams are tooled with holes to accept them.  In this condition, they were not vac fitted*.  The second compromise of which I am aware is the double scallop to one side of the cab rear sheet, which should not be there. As discussed, the only secondary source to comment on the lining says it should be white, with no primary evidence on the table and, in my view, no sound basis for preferring goods livery light green. But, also as I made clear, I am prepared to live with this.  Nothing is going to be 100% perfect.  There are both some necessary compromises and some areas of detail that cannot be established with the certainty one would ideally like.   

 

So, aside from these minor discrepancies, it is a representation of the loco in 1893 upon transfer to the Dock Dept.  That much we can be confident about.

 

The crucial question is how long she would have stayed in that condition?  Earlier I note you asked after her condition in 1910. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that Guernsey was very likely still in this condition in 1910, and probably more or less to Grouping.

 

Three principal factors are likely to affect that.  One is any change in livery, the second is the plating in of the cabs mentioned by Richard, and the third is the chimney.

 

On livery, to keep the answer short, I have not seen any reference to a change in livery until they went brown in 1923.  The goods livery, if that's what you think was applied, was remarkably stable over the period 1885-1922, as I understand (see Southern Style), but I think they were in fact painted in a Dock Dept. livery variation and, again, I've seen no suggestion that this changed prior to Grouping.  Docks Dept. locos were generally repaired and repainted at Southampton; it seems to have been exceptional when some went to Eastleigh for overhaul in 1918-9.

 

As Richard points out, it was the progressive plating in of the cab cut-outs that was the major change.  In most cases. a pretty fair assumption would be that it is this change, not any livery change, that will give you the end-date for the condition represented by the model. Not so,in the case of Guernsey, however.

 

The first so treated - and I've just seen Richard post this - was Granville in 1899. The right hand or driver's side on the front sheet was filled. 

 

Bradley notes that Normandy and Brittany had the right side infill fitted in 1901-1902, while St Malo had both sides of the front sheet filled in 1903.   Richard's picture shows a similar treatment on Guernsey, with a lipped chimney (see below). That picture is on the rear cover of the Peter Cooper book and is dated vaguely as 'around the 1920s'.

 

Bradley goes on to suggest that the others were so treated sometime prior to Grouping, but then adds that Havre and Guernsey were not dealt with until 1926-7.  So there you are, if that's right, the picture posted by Richard must be 1926-7 or after. In mid-1930, authorisation was given for back plates. The picture is likely to be before June 1934, when numerals were applied to the cab back-sheet of Guernsey

 

The other factor is the fitting of Drummond lipped chimneys.  This was done on the class from 1902, but outliers didn't receive theirs until 1940!  So, for you the question is whether a Drummond chimney had been fitted to Guernsey before 1910.  That I do not see as recorded in any of the published sources.  Bradley describes this as a 'very gradual process', and the earliest picture I have seen of Guernsey with a lipped chimney is that posted by Richard, which appears to date within 1926-7 to June 1934.  I think you could legitimately run Guernsey with a stovepipe in 1910 unless and until some reliably dated picture or other evidence emerges to contradict that. 

 

This is what makes Guernsey a good choice for a model, of all the Dock Dept. tanks, the appearance of Guernsey probably remained stable for the longest period.  

 

 

* Caen and Cherbourg alone of the dozen B4s sent to the Dock Dept. between 1893 and 1901 retained their vac fittings, according to Bradley.

 

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My 30084 finally turned up (the post being so sllllloooooooowwwwwwwww.... at the moment). This time a K14 that was located at Dover in early BR days. So fits in fine with my every increasing Kent themed rolling.

 

Here she is with my other 3 B4s (2 being of the Bluebell loco and Caen being so cute as well as having detailed differences over the other 3), note the different boiler on 30084, a new feature with this production of Dapols locos.

 

Well, that is me filled for this type of loco. Dapol are now free to scrap the tools (note this is desperate plea not to be tempted by more).

 

 

B4_1.jpg

B4_2.jpg

B4_3.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yes, I think they're lovely, that's why I bought one!

 

The running qualities are superb.

 

In terms of Guernsey's condition, the model seems to me to be intended to reflect the 1893 onward condition, when 176 and its sister engine became the first pair named, re-liveried and given cab cut-outs for dock work. Richard has kindly confirmed that is indeed the condition it is intended to represent.

 

There are some details on  the model that do not conform to this condition perfectly. I note these without criticism or complaint.  I accept that the tooling suite must have sensible limitations - as Richard knows, I have some insight into the economics of production - and, therefore, I make no complaint there.  So, we have vac stands fitted because the buffer beams are tooled with holes to accept them.  In this condition, they were not vac fitted*.  The second compromise of which I am aware is the double scallop to one side of the cab rear sheet, which should not be there. As discussed, the only secondary source to comment on the lining says it should be white, with no primary evidence on the table and, in my view, no sound basis for preferring goods livery light green. But, also as I made clear, I am prepared to live with this.  Nothing is going to be 100% perfect.  There are both some necessary compromises and some areas of detail that cannot be established with the certainty one would ideally like.   

 

So, aside from these minor discrepancies, it is a representation of the loco in 1893 upon transfer to the Dock Dept.  That much we can be confident about.

 

The crucial question is how long she would have stayed in that condition?  Earlier I note you asked after her condition in 1910. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that Guernsey was very likely still in this condition in 1910, and probably more or less to Grouping.

 

Three principal factors are likely to affect that.  One is any change in livery, the second is the plating in of the cabs mentioned by Richard, and the third is the chimney.

 

On livery, to keep the answer short, I have not seen any reference to a change in livery until they went brown in 1923.  The goods livery, if that's what you think was applied, was remarkably stable over the period 1885-1922, as I understand (see Southern Style), but I think they were in fact painted in a Dock Dept. livery variation and, again, I've seen no suggestion that this changed prior to Grouping.  Docks Dept. locos were generally repaired and repainted at Southampton; it seems to have been exceptional when some went to Eastleigh for overhaul in 1918-9.

 

As Richard points out, it was the progressive plating in of the cab cut-outs that was the major change.  In most cases. a pretty fair assumption would be that it is this change, not any livery change, that will give you the end-date for the condition represented by the model. Not so,in the case of Guernsey, however.

 

The first so treated - and I've just seen Richard post this - was Granville in 1899. The right hand or driver's side on the front sheet was filled. 

 

Bradley notes that Normandy and Brittany had the right side infill fitted in 1901-1902, while St Malo had both sides of the front sheet filled in 1903.   Richard's picture shows a similar treatment on Guernsey, with a lipped chimney (see below). That picture is on the rear cover of the Peter Cooper book and is dated vaguely as 'around the 1920s'.

 

Bradley goes on to suggest that the others were so treated sometime prior to Grouping, but then adds that Havre and Guernsey were not dealt with until 1926-7.  So there you are, if that's right, the picture posted by Richard must be 1926-7 or after. In mid-1930, authorisation was given for back plates. The picture is likely to be before June 1934, when numerals were applied to the cab back-sheet of Guernsey

 

The other factor is the fitting of Drummond lipped chimneys.  This was done on the class from 1902, but outliers didn't receive theirs until 1940!  So, for you the question is whether a Drummond chimney had been fitted to Guernsey before 1910.  That I do not see as recorded in any of the published sources.  Bradley describes this as a 'very gradual process', and the earliest picture I have seen of Guernsey with a lipped chimney is that posted by Richard, which appears to date within 1926-7 to June 1934.  I think you could legitimately run Guernsey with a stovepipe in 1910 unless and until some reliably dated picture or other evidence emerges to contradict that. 

 

This is what makes Guernsey a good choice for a model, of all the Dock Dept. tanks, the appearance of Guernsey probably remained stable for the longest period.  

 

 

* Caen and Cherbourg alone of the dozen B4s sent to the Dock Dept. between 1893 and 1901 retained their vac fittings, according to Bradley.

 

. Absolutely brilliant, thanks very much for the detailed helpful reply :) delighted

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So with big thanks to everyone here for the help and information here is my new B4 reviewed and running with other locos and stock.

 

 

I think she is just stunning in both looks and performance, well done Dapol.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikesndbs said:

So with big thanks to everyone here for the help and information here is my new B4 reviewed and running with other locos and stock.

 

 

I think she is just stunning in both looks and performance, well done Dapol.

 

I look forward to a view. Though, that wagon's a liability from the look of it. ;)

 

 

  • Funny 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/05/2020 at 17:56, JeremyKarl said:

Once open, a 6-pin direct plug DCC chip is easy to fit in Guernsey but it does need to be very small as shown below. 

 

dcc_fitted2.jpg.397eec9e521bd794413a17d9334af970.jpg

 

Hi Jeremy,

 

May I kindly ask you to disclose the size of the decoder used? As I intend to use either a Zimo MX616 (8x8x2.4 mm) or MX617 (13x9x2.5 mm), I am trying to find out the space available to order a decoder of suitable dimensions.

 

Best regards

Mark 

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Guardian said:

 

Hi Jeremy,

 

May I kindly ask you to disclose the size of the decoder used? As I intend to use either a Zimo MX616 (8x8x2.4 mm) or MX617 (13x9x2.5 mm), I am trying to find out the space available to order a decoder of suitable dimensions.

 

Best regards

Mark 

Hi Mark,

I should have said which chip I used. The one in my photo is a Gaugemaster "Ruby" series chip DCC93, size quoted as 11mm (long excluding length due to pins) x 10mm (wide) x 3mm (thick). However, I have just measured a spare one and it came out as 10mm x 9mm, so the smaller Zimo chip will be fine. I assume the Zimo MX617 will be too long to get the top of the loco back on again - it was a close fit with the chip I used.

Cheers,

Jeremy

p.s. Would PM if I knew the system better. As my answer may be useful to others, I didn't look up how to do it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

That Gaugemaster chip looks remarkably similar to Dapol's own brand chip.  Are they the same?

 

Les

No. I have an Imperium 2 chip in my new Rails Terrier and that chip looks different (and not just different pin connections) to the Ruby one in my B4. ( I don't know whether any 6-pin Dapol chips exist - not seen any adverts for one.) There are other makes of 6-pin chip but some are too long to fit the B4.

Jeremy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Dapol use Gaugemaster decoders in their 6pin DCC fitted models. It used to be the DCC23, I assume the latest ones are the "new" DCC93 ruby things.

 

The Imperiums are LaisDCC decoders (at least the Imperium 1 and 2 are, not used a 3 yet).

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


 

my review video includes a full DCC fitting guide. Space is limited, however I used a Train-o-matic wired 6pin decoder. The chip fits perfectly in the space in the tank. At €18 it is also one of the cheaper 6pin decoders on the market and doesn’t tend to need any fiddling with the CVs to get good running out of any model. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, kwste said:

Is there a way in dcc to dim the fire box flicker higher? It is almost invisible.

 

Assuming its on a standard function output it will depend on the decoder you are using. The decent ones (Zimo/Lenz/ESU etc) all have brightness controlling CV's

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Have you tried turning the room lights down ?

The CV's for dimming the sunlight are even more difficult to find. It is probably still analog.:D

  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...