TheEngineShed Posted September 3, 2022 Share Posted September 3, 2022 (edited) If you look at the cab door in the current CAD, it looks as though the cab back is two separate colors, which could indicate that that the model has two separate parts. So open or closed cabs might be one of the options... Edited September 3, 2022 by TheEngineShed 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexl102 Posted September 3, 2022 Share Posted September 3, 2022 3 hours ago, TheEngineShed said: No, not yet. I managed to find proto photos of 7 of the 9 models being offered. I went so far as to post flickr links to all seven in a response to this topic. Problem was that even though flickr allows you to copy links, some of the photographers didn't want their images reposted on other sites without permission. So I deleted them all to avoid any controversies. The biggest difference from the photos I found at seemed to be whether the cab back was open, or closed with port holes. If that matters, it is a simple exercise to search flickr. Of course, if Dapol are only going to offer a closed back with port holes as depicted in the current CAD image, you might want to stay away from certain models... Thanks. I can see there are some photo links on the thread but I’m browsing on mobile and it doesn’t actually let me load the photos. Good to know though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted September 3, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 3, 2022 I just hope they don't use a roof-marring slide like they did with Rails' Terrier. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post That Model Railway Guy Posted October 9, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted October 9, 2022 Spotted this tucked away on the Dapol stand at GETS yesterday. Looking good - to my untrained eyes at least! 23 6 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 The coupler looks as if it clips on the hook. If that's the case then that's an excellent idea, which will mean no holes in buffer beams that need to be filled for those of us who's first action is to throw the tension locks in the bin. Plenty of cast metal there to provide weight, but a plastic cab that should lend itself to modification easily. I see the sand boxes are also separate plastic parts, which means updating to an RSH-built one is possible. Perhaps Dapol themselves will release versions as RSH-built in future? I would really like to know how much space there is under that tank and if a sound decoder, Stay Alive and speaker can be fitted. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pre Grouping fan Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 Hattons have just posted these images that show a better angle on the coupling arrangement. 11 2 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 Oh. Nothing new there then and another model ruined by a huge gap in the buffer beam. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Gilbert Posted October 10, 2022 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2022 14 minutes ago, Ruston said: Oh. Nothing new there then and another model ruined by a huge gap in the buffer beam. Presumably "fillable" for those of us who make alternative arrangements..you never know they may supply a NEM fitted blank... I took a photo at GETS but it was pants... Chris H 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndg910 Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 Sorry if this has been asked. I think Swansea Harbour Trust had a Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0 that the GWR and then BR absorbed. I have in my mind it was SHT No 13. I suspect some Swindonisation probably took place, but does the unrivalled RMWeb knowledge think this might be a feasible option - either out of the box RTR or with suitable parts? Or am I hoping for too much? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 14, later 943 and then 1142. Unfortunately looks quite different. https://www.flickr.com/photos/44544845@N08/8638393156 Jason 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris45lsw Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 No - 14/943/1142 was a Hudswell Clarke. The Hawthorn Leslie was SHT 13, GWR 974 renumbered 1144 Sep 1948. It does on the face of it look pretty similar but the filler cap is the other side of the dome. Chris KT 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 Just now, chris45lsw said: No - 14/943/1142 was a Hudswell Clarke. The Hawthorn Leslie was SHT 13, GWR 974 renumbered 1144 Sep 1948. It does on the face of it look pretty similar but the filler cap is the other side of the dome. Chris KT Of course, your right. Spent half the day looking at Hudswell Clarkes for a different reason! This is what we should be looking at. https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=673 Kit available here. https://cspmodels.com/abante/index.php?rt=product/product&manufacturer_id=21&product_id=115 Jason 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinM Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 APCM cement works at Swanscombe, Kent had seven of these and 2 I think have been preserved.... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 7 hours ago, MartinM said: APCM cement works at Swanscombe, Kent had seven of these and 2 I think have been preserved.... The APCM Swanscombe engines were not the same type as the Dapol model. They were much larger all round and had 16-inch cylinders. The Dapol model appears to be the 14-inch and is smaller than the Swanscombe engines. There are also obvious differences in appearance of the cabs and the front of the smokebox. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pmorgancym Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 Oh well a day job as an asbestos consultant, would be rude not to.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cctransuk Posted October 18, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 18, 2022 On 10/10/2022 at 19:04, Ruston said: Oh. Nothing new there then and another model ruined by a huge gap in the buffer beam. Considering the extent of the locomotive surgery that you continually undertake, surely filling a couple of rectangular holes can be done in your sleep? How else are the needs of the majority, who do use tension-locks, to be met? The chain-coupling brigade will always be in the minority. CJI. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 4 hours ago, Ruston said: The APCM Swanscombe engines were not the same type as the Dapol model. They were much larger all round and had 16-inch cylinders. The Dapol model appears to be the 14-inch and is smaller than the Swanscombe engines. There are also obvious differences in appearance of the cabs and the front of the smokebox. The 14" is the most obvious to do as it was the most common version. Les 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
45568 Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 On 12/10/2022 at 08:35, chris45lsw said: No - 14/943/1142 was a Hudswell Clarke. The Hawthorn Leslie was SHT 13, GWR 974 renumbered 1144 Sep 1948. It does on the face of it look pretty similar but the filler cap is the other side of the dome. Chris KT Looking at the images of the model and the real 1144, the filler cap appears to be a separate plastic fitting, so it will hopefully be reasonably simple to reposition it and the handrails. Fit a bell where the filler was originally and replace the safety valves with a GW milk churn and you're done! A companion for this little chap! Cheers from Oz, Peter C. 5 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted October 19, 2022 Share Posted October 19, 2022 (edited) 14 hours ago, cctransuk said: Considering the extent of the locomotive surgery that you continually undertake, surely filling a couple of rectangular holes can be done in your sleep? How else are the needs of the majority, who do use tension-locks, to be met? The chain-coupling brigade will always be in the minority. CJI. A tension lock with a U-shape that goes under the buffer beam and comes back up to the required height, rather than one that is straight and needs a large chunk of the buffer beam to be missing, would be the obvious solution. Edited October 19, 2022 by Ruston 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Dragonfly Posted October 19, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 19, 2022 10 minutes ago, Ruston said: A tension lock with a U-shape that goes under the buffer beam and comes back up to the required height, rather than one that is straight and needs a large chunk of the buffer beam to be missing, would be the obvious solution. Would they not be massively more prone to breakage? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted October 19, 2022 Share Posted October 19, 2022 10 minutes ago, Dragonfly said: Would they not be massively more prone to breakage? That would depend on what they're made of and how well they're designed. And, of course, how you handle them. It's a detailed model costing over £100; it's not a kid's toy, so I'd expect people who buy them won't break them in normal use. If you drop it on the floor then that's another thing but the coupling breaking is going to be the least of your worries, isn't it? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Dragonfly Posted October 19, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 19, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Ruston said: That would depend on what they're made of and how well they're designed. And, of course, how you handle them. It's a detailed model costing over £100; it's not a kid's toy, so I'd expect people who buy them won't break them in normal use. If you drop it on the floor then that's another thing but the coupling breaking is going to be the least of your worries, isn't it? Well aware of that, but those are not the only causes. Derailments, or indeed anything increasing the strain on the coupling (which becomes a twisting force rather than linear), will all either deform or break such a coupling. Even the weight of a train load, particularly on a corner and/or incline, would compound that risk. Edited October 19, 2022 by Dragonfly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted October 19, 2022 Share Posted October 19, 2022 18 minutes ago, Dragonfly said: Well aware of that, but those are not the only causes. Derailments, or indeed anything increasing the strain on the coupling (which becomes a twisting force rather than linear), will all either deform or break such a coupling. Even the weight of a train load, particularly on a corner and/or incline, would compound that risk. Yes, of course. If it's made of chocolate. It's all academic anyway as they've already chosen to leave a lump out of the bufferbeam. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
5Dublo2 Posted October 19, 2022 Share Posted October 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Ruston said: A tension lock with a U-shape that goes under the buffer beam and comes back up to the required height, rather than one that is straight and needs a large chunk of the buffer beam to be missing, would be the obvious solution. If you did that then, irrespective of any weak points, it would not just affect Tension Lock users, but users of any coupling design that is compatible with an NEM pocket. Kadees, Hunt etc would also have to be available with U shaped coupling options as well. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted October 19, 2022 Share Posted October 19, 2022 3 minutes ago, 5Dublo2 said: If you did that then, irrespective of any weak points, it would not just affect Tension Lock users, but users of any coupling design that is compatible with an NEM pocket. Kadees, Hunt etc would also have to be available with U shaped coupling options as well. I refer the honourable member to the answer that I gave earlier. 33 minutes ago, Ruston said: It's all academic anyway as they've already chosen to leave a lump out of the bufferbeam. 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