Dapol Class 22

[spamcan61]

 

It's been so long ( 2 1/2 Years) since I ordered mine that I can't remember which one I ordered

 

Wonder if we're going to have a re-run of the BWT expired credit card challenge.

[Trevellan]

 

Wonder if we're going to have a re-run of the BWT expired credit card challenge.

If the model is delayed your suggestion could become an Olympic event.

 

I pre-ordered one from Hattons and it is....yes, D6332, described as green, SYP and split headcode. Of all the ones I had to pick...

[Gwiwer]

A quick review of the retailers confirms:

 

D1000a : D6324 blue fye

D1000b :D6326 blue fye

D1000c : D6314 green syp

D1000d : D6319 green syp

D1000e : D6327 green syp

D1000f : D6332 plain green

Also from Kernow

D1000x : D6315 green syp weathered

D1000y : D6323 green syp weathered

D1000z : D6330 blue fye weathered

 

All are listed as split headcode.

 

There's still time for anyone who wishes to change their orders.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Gwiwer

[Pannier Tank]

I actually ordered :- D1000c Class 22 B-B Diesel Hydraulic D6324 in BR Green with small yellow panel

 

From the above list it looks like I will be getting D6314 Green SYP

[Gwiwer]

The identities of the models being released was changed and widely announced many months ago. I not only changed my order at that time but subsequently changed it again when Kernow announced their weathered versions.

[Trevor H]

http://www.rmweb.co....__fromsearch__1 Edited March 16, 2012 by Trevor H

[97403_Ixion]

Hi all,

it sounds like Dapol are releasing different Class 22 numbers to those listed the other day, over on 'the other channel' (f/B)...

 

Dapol state to ignore the current numbers and that the correct ones will be posted on f/b and their website soon. So, until then, it's best to wait to see what Dapol more formally announce.

 

I expect that they have listened - full marks to them if this be the case, I say!

 

Cheers,

Ixion.

[Geoff Endacott]

It dawned on me today that there is another problem with the list of liveries. It is good practice to work from a photograph of your chosen prototype wherever possible. Dapol can't be working from photos as a photo of D6324 in blue livery can't exist.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Geoff Endacott]

From Dapol on Facebook:

 

"Please ignore the running number on the Class 22's. The correct ones willbe posted here and on the website soon."

 

Geoff Endacott

[Gwiwer]

It's encouraging to hear Dapol are intent on getting things right. It's perhaps less so that this would be at least the second major "renumbering" of these locos and bound to cause some confusion and perhaps upset among those who prefer to have everything correct. However we can't win every battle and Dapol appears to be trying to spread the word as widely and as quickly as possible and there is still some time to change orders before these locos arrive should that be necessary.

[brushman47544]

But Dapol, and indeed others, could save themselves a lot of time and bother if, as Geoff Endacott suggests, they only announce models for which they have a picture available. There's enough on the web, in books and elsewhere to ensure you get it right first time, so there's really no excuse. But having said that, it good that Dapol take note and change numbers when they've got it wrong.

[Rugd1022]

But Dapol, and indeed others, could save themselves a lot of time and bother if, as Geoff Endacott suggests, they only announce models for which they have a picture available. There's enough on the web, in books and elsewhere to ensure you get it right first time, so there's really no excuse. But having said that, it good that Dapol take note and change numbers when they've got it wrong.

 

To be fair Andrew, not all of the published photos show all of the required detail and variations amongst the class, I've got hundreds and it's an utter nightmare trying to sort them all out. As an example, there's a published colour shot of D6307 taken almost head on which looks like if has 'standard' headcode boxes, whereas all other shots of the same loco show it with D6xx style boxes which protruded from the cab front and werevery different. This is one of the (many and varied) reasons why it's taken so long to get this far.

 

Be assured, Dapol Dave is taking note and I've just PM'd Andy Y with a revised list of possible contenders (which as it is still needs double checking!), after going through all of my photos and slides for the umpteenth time. That said, there are still 'gaps' in the combined knowledge of those of us who are interested in the class as some of them were hardly ever photographed, if at all, and with all of the modifications during and after the building programme and the livery changes which spanned them, it's been a difficult project right from the start. The retro fitting of headcode boxes to D6306 - D6333 alone has thrown up some anomalies with the dates and livery combinations amongst them being hard to pin down. For a smallish class which lasted little more than a decade, they are a hard subject to get right... .

 

Edit : ...and as a case in point..... with RMWeb currently taking ages to load up, the first draft of the above post was 'lost in the ether' with bits missing! Since typing it up I've cross checked a few things and have realised I also missed one loco off the list I sent to Andy Y a few moments ago (D6325 Andy if you're reading this, in blue, as per D6318 with smaller than standard arrows... boiler exhaust port still needs checking of course, and disregard my question over D6312 in GSYP, it had the eyebrows above the cab windows). Cross checking my list AGAIN with that of Kernow's I've now realised we have one less choice than I initially thought, as my list partly duplicated theirs..... so you can see how easy it is to go round and round in circles with these things! As an aside, a previously lost photo of D6323 has just reappeared in my collection showing a variation which can be easily modelled by those so inclined, with apertures for the yet to be fitted headcode boxes plated over in 1964, with a headcode disc still attached to one of the front communicating doors. I dare say other photos will emerge from various collections once the model is released.... Sod's Law and all that!

Edited October 27, 2011 by Rugd1022

[Gwiwer]

Any class or type, unless modelled "as built", is going to become a minefield when modifications and later liveries are taken into account. Class 22 maybe more so than some others but we have much the same discussion with virtually any new release. The 512 well-photographed members of class 47 throw up all sorts of variations for example and the mainstream releases are not always a correct match of detail to livery to number.

 

The other side of that coin would be to only issue "as built" models which will leave many of us without the time period we model or desired livery represented and consequently deprive the manufacturers of sales.

 

While it shouldn't be too hard to get the number matched with a correct livery variation there is a degree of "Damned if we do and damned if we don't" inherent in mass-produced models.

[Rugd1022]

Precisely Gwiwer! If Dapol had chosen the relatively 'easy' option of doing the D6334-D6357 batch with far fewer mods and variations, we'd still be yearning for the D6300-D6305 and D6306-D6333 in as built condition, especially those modelling the early steam / diesel transition era on the WR.

 

Something which I don't think any of us has mentioned before is a crucial little detail that could have made life a bit easier for those who aren't scared of taking a scalpel to an expensive new model, had it been incorporated into the tooling....(sorry DapolDave, file this under 'hindsight' and feel free to hurl a few new swear words in my general direction)... the 'eyebrows' above the front windows could have been incorporated into any chosen bodyshell tooling and removed by the modeller who wished to renumber the loco later on, with a bit of filing and paint it would have been an easy 'fix' giving more choices... the down side being of course that it's very inclusion could easily have put a large number of potential buyers off if they weren't too keen on hacking into a shiny new loco).

 

Edited October 27, 2011 by Rugd1022

[Trevor H]

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/51518-class-22-detail-variation/page__fromsearch__1

Edited February 4, 2012 by Trevor H

[Trevor H]

http://www.rmweb.co....__fromsearch__1 Edited March 16, 2012 by Trevor H

[Rugd1022]

Thanks for reposting that list Trevor, I was unable to go back through the thread earlier this afternoon to check due to the current slow down (not Andy Y's fault of course). I still managed to miss off three of those locos in the list I sent Andy / Dave today as some of my photos are missing 'presumed hiding somewhere beneath a pile of other stuff'!

 

I've got photos to hand of all of those in your list apart from D6313, D6321 and D6329 as described, the one that sticks out to me though is D6325... do we have photographic evidence of it in green with retro fitted 'boxes before going blue? It's definitely one of the lesser photographed NBLs during the 'mid' period '65 / '66.

[Flood]

Sorry if I sound a bit thick.

 

Trevor H's post states that some 22s had Clayton boilers and some had Vapour ones but that the Dapol model can be used for a model of both types. I'm assuming that the actual boiler exhaust port on the roof was the same whichever type was inside hence there was no external difference.

 

Am I correct?

[Gwiwer]

Straight from Fiascobook:-

 

Class 22 descriptions have now been corrected; D1000A - CLASS 22 BR Blue Full Yellow Ends Font B 6324' date=' D1000F - CLASS 22 BR Green Small Yellow Panel Font A D6331 Sorry for the confusion as the files were these descriptions were taken from were not updated.[/quote']

 

That still has D6324 in a fictitious livery and replaces the only plain green one with another green syp version.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Gwiwer

[10800]

replaces the only plain green one with another green syp version.

 

It was the plain green that I had originally ordered, but I don't think there were ever more than a couple in full plain green with headcode boxes (I've only seen a photo of D6334 like this, on p52 of David Cable's "Hydraulics in the West"). At the time I ordered, seems like sometime in the last century now, I had assumed the plain green would be a disc version. Maybe they will bring such a thing out one day. Based on your info it looks like I will have to change to one of the GSYPs.

[Brinkly]

Maybe they will bring such a thing out one day.

 

At members day the nice chap at the Dapol stand (think it was Dapol Dave, but can't remember!) said to Brian and myself that it was Dapol's plan to bring out the earlier version.

 

Regards,

 

Nick.

[ncornwall]

A disc version would be great goodness!

 

I also had assumed originally that the plain green version would have disc headcodes. I accepted the compromise of headcode boxes, but boxes plus syp is a bridge too far for my purposes. My pre-order (June 2009!) has therefore been cancelled.

 

If Dapol do produce a plain green/disc version they might have a customer back. Meanwhile I've ordered an extra Bachmann 45xx to cover the duty.

 

 

Tony

[brushman47544]

I appreciate I was probably generalising too much about selecting models to produce based on photographs, but even if the photo need studying to check specific details, at least you can rule out a lot of potential numbers simply because a loco never carried that livery. And I know from this thread and elsewhere how much effort has been put in to help Dapol get the models right.

 

Meanwhile I've ordered an extra Bachmann 45xx to cover the duty.

I hope you're good with a lining pen... The two latest Bachmann 45xx and 4575 small prairies with the late crest both have the second boiler band lining back from the chimney missing.

[Geoff Endacott]

I have just added a comment on Facebook about D6324. Maybe they will become collectors' items. I can see them on eBay now - rare Dapol Class 22 in incorrect livery.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Rugd1022]

Likewise Geoff, I've just added a comment on facebook hoping someone will see it, but having done that I've just twigged what I think they meant to write..... instead of 6324 it should be 6326, which carried Blue / FYE with the later 'font' as they discribe it.

 

We may just get there in the end.....