KR Models announce the Clayton DHP1

[ColinK]

1 minute ago, russ p said:

 

Do they power a single transmission or are they like those awful stadlers where four engine generator  sets combine power for four traction motors

I’m not totally sure, but I think the engine generator sets combine their power.  They have had a lot of problems, especially with the transformers.

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, Pandora said:

There is a hint as to the reason for building of DHP1 in the biography for Lt-Col Fell,   being Rolls Royce in seeking export markets for their range of diesel engines in rail traction applications , required the presence of a locomotive in service with BR as an example of  their products.

They did of course have their C Range engines already in successful use with BR under DMUs and they owned their own loco building factory after they took over Sentinel although hardly 'main line' locos.  So - apart from  a few of their engines being used in larger locos as an alternative to ropey original engines - they did have at least a toe in the rail business.  But at that time they didn't really have anything with the sort of hp output a single engined loco needed.

 

And twin engined locos had a very patchy history on BR as they were often attended by transmission complexity or where the transmission was simple by a level of engine complexity that required continuous manufacturer support for years

[Pandora]

19 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

They did of course have their C Range engines already in successful use with BR under DMUs and they owned their own loco building factory after they took over Sentinel although hardly 'main line' locos.  So - apart from  a few of their engines being used in larger locos as an alternative to ropey original engines - they did have at least a toe in the rail business.  But at that time they didn't really have anything with the sort of hp output a single engined loco needed.

 

 

The C range engines were used for far more than Rail, applications included  Marine ,  Gensets, Earthmoving machinery, Oilfield plant, Army vehicles and Battle Tanks.

  Here is a link to  LtCol Fell and the Rolls Royce connection to DHP1:

https://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/fell/fell11.htm

The account claims RR had more than half  of the UK market for high speed diesel engines in the power ranges required  in such equipment.

The link is an account of Fell written  by his son who  followed his father into engineering, due to the scarcity of published information , the account by the son  is probably the best source we are likely to find.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Pandora

[Barry O]

11 hours ago, Pandora said:

The C range engines were used for far more than Rail, applications included  Marine ,  Gensets, Earthmoving machinery, Oilfield plant, Army vehicles and Battle Tanks.

  Here is a link to  LtCol Fell and the Rolls Royce connection to DHP1:

https://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/fell/fell11.htm

The account claims RR had more than half  of the UK market for high speed diesel engines in the power ranges required  in such equipment.

The link is an account of Fell written  by his son who  followed his father into engineering, due to the scarcity of published information , the account by the son  is probably the best source we are likely to find.

No UK main battle tanks but the Antar tank transporter had them. Rolls Royce supplied Meteor engines ( a modified Merlin) in Centurions, then CV12s in Challenger 1 and 2.. different engine entirely..24l twin turbocharged 1200hp engine. No need for 4 eng8nes in adhp1!

 

BAOR did have some locos fitted with CV 8s.. also used in the Warrior IFV

Baz

Edited August 4, 2022 by Barry O

[Pandora]

Received an e-mail from KR, advising my order of June 2021 for DHP1 is being processed.

Does this mean the model is ready for shipping?

[Darius43]

35 minutes ago, Pandora said:

Received an e-mail from KR, advising my order of June 2021 for DHP1 is being processed.

Does this mean the model is ready for shipping?

Got the same email myself.  It may or may not signify something - there have been spurious emails like this in the past.  We’ll need to wait and see.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[Tim Hall]

36 minutes ago, Pandora said:

Received an e-mail from KR, advising my order of June 2021 for DHP1 is being processed.

Does this mean the model is ready for shipping?

No, I got one for Leader, it's their computer system being weird (again).

It's a very, very long way from being ready I would imagine.

[Colin_McLeod]

I got one telling me that they had finished processing my consett iron ore wagon order!

[Les1952]

On 16/10/2022 at 20:44, Colin_McLeod said:

I got one telling me that they had finished processing my consett iron ore wagon order!

 

Worth checking the DHP1 confirmations to make sure you still have the right version ordered.   The bug that is causing them to re-send confirmations could also be responsible for people (including me) who ordered a sound-fitted Fell getting an analogue on

 

Les

[Colin_McLeod]

1 hour ago, Les1952 said:

 

Worth checking the DHP1 confirmations to make sure you still have the right version ordered.   The bug that is causing them to re-send confirmations could also be responsible for people (including me) who ordered a sound-fitted Fell getting an analogue on

 

Les

 

Normally I would act upon that advice, but my wagons actually already arrived in April!

[adb968008]

I got an email about a class 124…

 

 

😄

 

only kidding.

[adb968008]

I recieved an email from Rails indicating DHP1 is now available via Rails.

 

 

[Halvarras]

Bit puzzled by the D4337 running number on the BR green and blue versions. Obviously it's fictitious but placing it between the diesel shunter and Type 2 number ranges doesn't seem appropriate when the 1500hp DHP1 just crept into the Type 3 power category. Therefore D64xx might have been more logical, if no more than 100 were envisaged - D73xx would have allowed 200, assuming the Class 25 D75xx series extension had already been allocated (looks like it) while steering clear of the 300 Hymeks Beyer-Peacock had hoped to build......

[jjb1970]

Hopefully they'll make all their models available via Rails (and maybe even other retailers in time). Some of their models are subjects I'm extremely interested in, if done reasonably well I'd be all over a Leader.

[cctransuk]

16 hours ago, adb968008 said:

I recieved an email from Rails indicating DHP1 is now available via Rails.

 

 

 

Is that 'available' as in 'in stock', or as in 'for pre-order'?

 

CJI.

[adb968008]

4 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Is that 'available' as in 'in stock', or as in 'for pre-order'?

 

CJI.

Pre-order

[Ryde-on-time]

A post on Facebook today with photo of decorated sample

 

https://www.facebook.com/krmodels.uk/posts/701305085344437?ref=embed_post

 

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Ryde-on-time
link amended

[adb968008]

Looks a nice model, but

 

1. the builders plate doesnt seem to match photos.

2. Not sure about the DHP1 font either…

3. minor but the cream should extend further down the cab front by the window.

4. shouldnt the cream be Salmon pink

5. and the roof be white ?

6. cab roof seems a bit angular, wasnt it curved ?

7. Handrails look to stick out a bit far

8. Cab windows, the central window doesnt slide open, but the other two do.

 

9. The boiler water tank was in the cab, to one side, resulting in the grab handles for roof access being on different places on each side of DHp1… one one side behind the 2nd window, and the other side, between the door and first window… this makes identifying which side your looking at easier. (See item 12 here)

https://claytonequipment.co.uk/shop/Prototype-DHP1-Drawing-Pack-p159403663

 

10.  It also means the boiler exhaust port would be offset on the cab roof… (but I havent seen one yet on the EPs).

11. As it was off centre the water tank was on the opposite side meaning a slightly differenet arrangement of under frame tanks.

12. The bonnet did have a ventilated grill panel on one side, visible in this picture.. (looking to the back).

13. this is also the side with the speedo (missing on EP ).

 

https://www.facebook.com/brcwco/photos/p.2499899416812956/2499899416812956
 

Looking at the EP I see none of the above here in this photo (i cannot be sure its both sides as it looks the same both sides, but the wooden plinth its on has differing scratches, so I can only guess that it is of both sides)

https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/news/leader-and-clayton-dhp1-ep-samples-from-kr-models/

Body side 1 here (with speedo and body side grills on the rear bonnet doors, and roof grab rails between door and centre window)

https://claytonequipment.co.uk/shop/Prototype-DHP1-Drawing-Pack-p159403663

body side 2 here (without, and roof grab handles between leading window and door).

https://krmodels.net/product/clayton-dhp1/

 

14. would be interesting to see the cab drivers desks, as photos do exist in the public domain.

https://www.dawlishtrains.com/uploads/7/2/2/3/7223531/5759485_orig.jpg

15. Footsteps incorrectly painted

16. OHLE flashes look large and wrongly positioned.

17. Missing OHLE by the roof access steps/grab handles.

18. Front radiator grill is squared off shape with rounded corners, not a rectangle with a curve / arched top.

19. although the bonnet is a gentle curve, the headcode box sits squarely on it, on the model theres a stronger arch above the headcode box making it a sharper curved bonnet.

20. As per the uploaded drawing the bonnet ends are flat fronted, not angular.

21. Wheel guards ?

 

finally,

22. shouldn't there be 4 square exhaust holes from the engines, upto the cab roof one either side of each the central windows aligning with and ontop of those pillars ?

 

of all this, that front end of the bonnet looks most off..its too strong a curve and the radiator grill is the wrong size and shape… I also wonder if both sides have been modelled ?

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by adb968008

[Colin_McLeod]

@adb968008 a lot of useful comments there.  May I suggest an email to KR Models and see what happens!

[cctransuk]

14 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

@adb968008 a lot of useful comments there.  May I suggest an email to KR Models and see what happens!

 

Done.

 

CJI.

[adb968008]

23 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

@adb968008 a lot of useful comments there.  May I suggest an email to KR Models and see what happens!

I’m not sure I want the response, besides I dont want to be banned from their facebook page!
 

 

8 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Done.

 

CJI.

Braver man than I, but I know you’ll come out fighting.

interested to know the response.

Edited July 12, 2023 by adb968008

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

I’m not sure I want the response, besides I dont want to be banned from their facebook page!
 

 

Braver man than I, but I know you’ll come out fighting.

interested to know the response.

 

I simply copied what you had said - WITHOUT NAMING THE SOURCE - highlighting those particular issues that might be deal-breakers for me.

 

I reminded them that they had asked whether I would like to cancel my pre-order for DHP1 at the time that I returned the 'Fell' for refund, on the grounds that it did not accurately reproduce the prototype.

 

I stated that the issues with DHP1 might affect my acceptance of the model - on the same grounds - and that I hoped that amendments could be made.

 

All very polite and unprovocative!

 

CJI.

Edited July 12, 2023 by cctransuk

[GWR-fan]

Given a release date in just a few months,  I doubt any revision to the tooling will be made.  Most likely "promises" that issues will be looked into but I highly suspect that what you see is what you get.

[cctransuk]

9 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

Given a release date in just a few months,  I doubt any revision to the tooling will be made.  Most likely "promises" that issues will be looked into but I highly suspect that what you see is what you get.

 

I'm afraid that I have to agree.

 

CJI.

[PieGuyRob]

16 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

Given a release date in just a few months,  I doubt any revision to the tooling will be made.  Most likely "promises" that issues will be looked into but I highly suspect that what you see is what you get.

Unfortunately, with KRModels previous with the Fell, I have to agree with you.