RMweb Premium newbryford Posted July 30, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 30, 2016 I was rather hoping that Dapol would figure out a way of re-arranging the front end so that the cowling did not have to be removed completely in order to fit tension lock/Kadee style couplings. Instead they've simply opted for the same arrangement as Bachmann's 66. To my eye a 59 or 66 without that front cowling just doesn't look like a 59/66. Hugely disappointing. IMO, It has to have a requirement to fit a tension lock (or at least NEM pocket), otherwise, it's a no-go for the UK 00 market. With a loco this long, the coupling has to pivot from the body or bogie to satisfy the second radius users (again a requirement for the UK market), so you're limited to the Bachmann style fix to accommodate a bogie mounted coupler, or a slotted arrangement similar to the Hornby 60 close coupling mechanism. At least the 60 and 66 have options to fit full deflectors for those that don't want/need the NEM pocket. Or you could copy the Hornby 153 and have a swinging deflector mounted from the bogie, with NEM pocket? :no: Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Basic shape looks very good but whats with all the air pipes on the bufferbeam? Its nice to have some spares but put them in the box not stuck to the front of the model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted July 30, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 30, 2016 I like the Bachmann solution better than putting the skirt in the NEM pocket. I cut a hole in the skirt and can use the NEM pocket through it on my larger radius curves. If they followed the same idea but put the pins almost at the outer edge, further than Bachmann, you can still have a suggestion of the skirt even on sharp radii. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaGrange Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Basic shape looks very good but whats with all the air pipes on the bufferbeam? Its nice to have some spares but put them in the box not stuck to the front of the model. Its still a pre-production model...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickL2008 Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 It looks good, looking forward to more sampels of the 59, but I don't know if its just me or do the sideframes project out a bit too far when the model is viewed head on? NL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 IMO, It has to have a requirement to fit a tension lock (or at least NEM pocket), otherwise, it's a no-go for the UK 00 market. With a loco this long, the coupling has to pivot from the body or bogie to satisfy the second radius users (again a requirement for the UK market), so you're limited to the Bachmann style fix to accommodate a bogie mounted coupler, or a slotted arrangement similar to the Hornby 60 close coupling mechanism... This highlights that the NEM coupler pocket isn't a solution designed for 4mm. What I have done on my Bach 66 is put one of their EZmates where it should be, in the bufferbeam at matching height to those fitted to the HTA's. Works beautifully, looks right as the airdam and all hoses can be fitted; slightly straightening the trip pins enables them to be actuated on Kadee magnetic uncouplers. A similar arrangement should be possible on a 59 model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Maybe my imagination, but the front really looks odd to me. Are the bogies slightly too wide at the front (aka Hornby class 31)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickL2008 Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Maybe my imagination, but the front really looks odd to me. Are the bogies slightly too wide at the front (aka Hornby class 31)? It does look like that, glad not just me that noticed that! NL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby (John) Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 It does look like that, glad not just me that noticed that! NL It's not the bogies, if you look at the colour of the plastic it is the sandboxes. And as Dapol have stated this is an EP sample so hopefully if this is incorrect they will correct it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoey Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 http://www.hornbymagazine.com/2016/09/09/Dapol-shows-first-class-59-sample/ 59 looks to be coming along nicely now. Looking forward to seeing painted samples. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGR Hooper! Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 http://www.hornbymagazine.com/2016/09/09/Dapol-shows-first-class-59-sample/ 59 looks to be coming along nicely now. Looking forward to seeing painted samples. Great....though I must add, you're 3 months late to the part! What you posted is from July 2016. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Great....though I must add, you're 3 months late to the part! What you posted is from July 2016. I was thinking the same. I was gonna say if those are new pictures then there's still something about the bogies that doesn't look quite right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoey Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Oh! How embarrassing hahaha ! I didn't even realise. It's been a long week... I must have been abducted by aliens at some point and returned having missed these! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D7100 Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Have I missed something in this thread? Shouldn't 4D-005-001 ARC Livery 59 103 read 'Village of Mells' and not 'Village of Great Elm'. Have Dapol got the number or name wrong. No doubt someone will put me right if I've made a mistake. Cheers D7100. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin_l_jones Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Have I missed something in this thread? Shouldn't 4D-005-001 ARC Livery 59 103 read 'Village of Mells' and not 'Village of Great Elm'. Have Dapol got the number or name wrong. No doubt someone will put me right if I've made a mistake. Cheers D7100. Very much an error or oversight. Might be worth mentioning on the Dapol Digest if youve not already done so.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Pedro32 Posted November 27, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 27, 2016 Seen at Warley this weekend 040 by Pedro Hill, on Flickr Cheers Peter 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanspareil Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Just for info Dapol told me that they plan in time to do some applicable Yeoman/ARC/Mendip type wagons to go with the 59's. Will be nice. One hopes the price wont be too crazy given the number required! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin_l_jones Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) An upgraded 59 will really sell, so I'm sure Dapol are on to a winner here, and if they do make some Hoppers they will clean up nicely, good for them... Edited January 12, 2017 by martin_l_jones 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going2theDogs Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Hi All, Producing the hopper wagons to match the class 59 is a natural progression. If the quality & pricing is in line with their recent Freightliner HIA's it will be a sure fire winner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James90012 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 The 59s are dangerous just because there are so many eye-catching liveries! One rake of e.g. Yeoman wagons could realistically cover all 59s except from National Power. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz9284 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Is there an estimated timescale for this, as the only wagon they can produce to go with all the 59's is the JHA wagon. In the summer I am planning on converting a dozen FLHH coal wagons to NP JMA's regards, Darryl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielson's shay no 3 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Is there an estimated timescale for this, as the only wagon they can produce to go with all the 59's is the JHA wagon. In the summer I am planning on converting a dozen FLHH coal wagons to NP JMA's regards, Darryl Well if you look now DB cargo are using redundant ews coal hoppers for stone traffic now with DB 59s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium njee20 Posted February 1, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 1, 2017 Is there an estimated timescale for this, as the only wagon they can produce to go with all the 59's is the JHA wagon. In the summer I am planning on converting a dozen FLHH coal wagons to NP JMA's regards, Darryl The Yeoman JHAs are very different to the ARC/Hanson JHAs mind, so you'd still need more than one. That said, I'd have their arm off if they do a rake of Hanson JHAs with a matching 59! I'd have thought PTAs or something had broader coverage, again except NP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steadfast Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 The most widespread wagon would be the JYA boxes. Built 1988, the cover virtually the entire life of the 59s and serve both quarries. The hoppers tend to only run out of the relevant quarry. Additionally, the 59/2s can often crop up on engineering jobs (such as the Eastleigh tripper, 6O41/6V41) or as yard pilot at Westbury, so plenty of variety to run them with Jo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcoblanco Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 How far off for this item any news... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now