Jump to content
 

Dapol OO Gauge Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

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...

4S-024-001_202203191357_3895376_Qty1_1.jpg

Edited by TheEngineShed
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • 1 month later...

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
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

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.

  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

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!

2048463896_Peckett1151007.JPG.2d664c01e02f853530e861c790408163.JPG

 

A companion for this little chap!

876763378_74xx005(2).JPG.4bdb6b9b72cf2c674995817eba95a64d.JPG

 

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

  • Like 5
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Ruston
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
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?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
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 by Dragonfly
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 


 

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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...