Dapol OO Gauge Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0

[cctransuk]

2 hours 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.

 

So, for the minority who use scale couplings to be saved an easy modification, the majority must have an even more visually intrusive tension-lock.

 

Moreover, the clearance between the rails and an under-bufferbeam coupling bracket would be minimal / non-existent on such a low / deep bufferbeam subject.

 

If you want prototypical couplings, a minor hole-filling mod is not unreasonable.

 

CJI.

[Dragonfly]

1 hour ago, Ruston said:

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.

 

Or did you just not want any flaws in your suggestion pointing out?

 

It was already academic before you made that suggestion. But that didn't stop you making it, and doesn't stop us discussing the idea with reasoned arguments (and ideally without just resorting to sarcastic attempts to belittle others' opinions).

[Captain Kernow]

No disrespect to anyone who is happy with the tension locks, but I agree with Ruston, that having to fill in a large gap in the buffer beam is a pain, even if the manufacturer supplies a blanking piece.

 

I would suggest that it's not just a case of gluing a blanking piece in place. The prototypical buffer beams, of course, are large, continuous pieces of metal and I think it's harder than one might expect, to seal up such a hole without any seam lines being apparent. If you want to then use filler and sand back, then there are all those rivets to consider, plus the restricted space to do all that in between the buffers.

 

I'm no more afraid of a 'bit of modelling' than the next person, but it seems to be that the obvious solution is to remove the buffers and all buffer beam detail and for someone like Planet Industrials to produce an etched overlay with rivet detail etc, on top of which replacement buffers can be affixed (assuming someone like Alan Gibson does such a thing in the first place).

 

I say the above in full recognition of the fact that Dapol have gone for the most obvious solution from a commercial and production point of view, which is fair enough.

 

[Bluebell Model Railway]

Have one on order, So nice to see the amount of metal going in to the body shell, should be a nice weighty model... just a shame they didn't give the B4 the same treatment, ran well but light as anything.
The cut out in the bufferbeam for the tension lock is a shame, but to avoid the dreaded stepped tension lock and wrong position of the pocket which then affects other couplers. Can't really see a way around it, unless the bufferbeam can be made interchangeable, but then it would be weak and a slight hit it would fall off, so it's a hard one... compromise I suppose.

[Steamport Southport]

3 hours 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.

 

What sort of strain are you going to be putting on the couplings of a model that would be pulling a handful of wagons, or two or three coaches maximum?

 

They aren't going to be pulling The Royal Scot over Shap....

 

 

Jason

[Ruston]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

So, for the minority who use scale couplings to be saved an easy modification, the majority must have an even more visually intrusive tension-lock.

 

Moreover, the clearance between the rails and an under-bufferbeam coupling bracket would be minimal / non-existent on such a low / deep bufferbeam subject.

 

If you want prototypical couplings, a minor hole-filling mod is not unreasonable.

 

CJI.

Go on. I'll bite..

 

An "even more visually intrusive tension-lock"? How do you know that it's more intrusive? If you've seen the drawings for, or a sample of, this hypothetical coupling then perhaps you can also give me this Saturday's winning Lottery numbers. Besides, how do you grade the visual intrusiveness of any tension-lock coupler? They're all horrible, ugly, things, which look even more horrible and even more ugly in inverse proportion to the size of the engine they are fitted to.

 

You're clutching at straws. The buffer beams on these HL's are no nearer to the rail tops than on anything else.

 

As the Cap'n has explained, above, it's not as easy as you might think to get a good finish. Rivet details makes things difficult and these particular models, with their die cast buffer beams, will be especially challenging. You can't solder brass to it, nor can you weld plastic in as you would on a plastic buffer beam. It's going to mean plasticard, superglue, filler and a weak joint that can fall out with a small knock. Even if they provide a blanking piece it will be as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Experience with various Hornby models has shown that they show clearly as a separate piece. To correct this they need filler, sanding and paint, They are useless because they rely on having a tail to fit in the NEM pocket. To remove the body from the chassis requires the filler pieces to be removed and so all your work to hide the join would be undone.

[cctransuk]

2 minutes ago, Ruston said:

Go on. I'll bite..

 

An "even more visually intrusive tension-lock"? How do you know that it's more intrusive? If you've seen the drawings for, or a sample of, this hypothetical coupling then perhaps you can also give me this Saturday's winning Lottery numbers. Besides, how do you grade the visual intrusiveness of any tension-lock coupler? They're all horrible, ugly, things, which look even more horrible and even more ugly in inverse proportion to the size of the engine they are fitted to.

 

You're clutching at straws. The buffer beams on these HL's are no nearer to the rail tops than on anything else.

 

As the Cap'n has explained, above, it's not as easy as you might think to get a good finish. Rivet details makes things difficult and these particular models, with their die cast buffer beams, will be especially challenging. You can't solder brass to it, nor can you weld plastic in as you would on a plastic buffer beam. It's going to mean plasticard, superglue, filler and a weak joint that can fall out with a small knock. Even if they provide a blanking piece it will be as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Experience with various Hornby models has shown that they show clearly as a separate piece. To correct this they need filler, sanding and paint, They are useless because they rely on having a tail to fit in the NEM pocket. To remove the body from the chassis requires the filler pieces to be removed and so all your work to hide the join would be undone.

 

I don't do the lottery - sorry.

 

However, I do know that, in order for the visible tension-lock to be attached to the fixing behind the bufferbeam, it would be necessary to have (a) significant connection(s) below the bufferbeam.

 

Comprising, as it must, two closely connected reverse bends, it (they) would be either unacceptably weak, or visually intrusive. Accepting that the tension-lock itself is unsightly, adding (a) sustantial connecting bracket(s) just adds insult to injury.

 

Since I use the Hornby Dublo / Peco Simplex coupling, I am well-versed in custom coupling fixings. Until recently, this involved creating cut-outs in deep bufferbeams,  including cast ones.

 

Nowadays, I solder the coupler-heads to brass strip, in order to fit the modified couplers into the NEM pockets.

 

Those of us who choose to use other than the (British) industry standard coupler do so in the knowledge that extra work will be involved. Nonetheless, the absence of facilities for our self-imposed choice of coupling does not "ruin" todays excellent RTR models.

 

It was your use of that latter gross overstatement that prompted me to post in this thread.

 

CJI.

[Ruston]

42 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

It was your use of that latter gross overstatement that prompted me to post in this thread.

Oh, sorry, John. I'll bear in mind not to upset you with gross overstatement again. How silly of me to think that it's just because you like an argument for argument's sake.

[cctransuk]

32 minutes ago, Ruston said:

Oh, sorry, John. I'll bear in mind not to upset you with gross overstatement again. How silly of me to think that it's just because you like an argument for argument's sake.

 

Dave,

 

I really don't see the need for a dog-in-the-manger attitude.

 

I questioned your use of "ruined", and pointed out the pitfalls of the alternative that you suggested.

 

All in the spirit of legitimate debate, I thought - there was no intention to ruffle feathers.

 

Best left there?

 

CJI.

[Dunsignalling]

I'm a long-time user of Kadee couplers but realise that the UK industry standard nowadays uses NEM plug-in couplers.

 

That gives me an easy option (so long as the pockets are correctly aligned), but I prefer to use "proper" Kadees with draft boxes where it doesn't create a stupid amount of work. My favourite tool for dealing with them is made by Xuron.

 

However, I've gradually come to a realisation that, in a number of cases I have actually been willing to put a very "stupid" amount of work into getting the neat and effective installation I desire! 🥸

 

John

Edited October 19, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[No Decorum]

Even where manufacturers supply a plug-in piece to fill the gap, it remains rather obvious if the buffer beam has wasp stripes. It would be agreeable if manufacturers were to provide alternative buffer beams. That would help those of us who like to have one end without tension locks for the sake of appearance. Alternative air dams/object deflectors have been supplied with some main line locos.

[wilks]

On 09/10/2022 at 20:53, That Model Railway Guy said:

Spotted this tucked away on the Dapol stand at GETS yesterday. Looking good - to my untrained eyes at least!

 

 

 

 

Thanks for posting the photos. The wheels don't appear to pushed home on their axles. Does that mean it could be an easy conversion to EM?

 

[Adam FW]

I don’t think Dapol have released the livery artwork for their 0-4-0ST Hawthorn Leslies yet but they had these handy print outs on their Warley stand showing the livery options.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It does say on the bottom of one of the sheets that these are artwork evaluations, so they may not be final

[David Stannard]

I'm really curious about the second black version as I haven't seen any information about it, it must be one of the liveries under evaluation.

[37079]

The second black one is black park colliery Spider - originally listed as green.

 

Mike

[Dunsignalling]

AIUI, 'Invincible' also saw service at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough.

 

Three questions in the hope that somebody out there knows.

 

1. Was that before or after it worked at Woolwich Arsenal (my assumption has always been after).

 

2. Was it altered to suit its new employment.

 

3. Did it carry the same livery at both locations.

 

John

 

 

[IWCR]

Invincible  worked  at  Farnborough  after  leaving  Woolwich

Not  altered.

No,  at  Farnborough  it  was  apple  green.  The  loco  is  currently  under  overhaul  at  the  Isle of Wight steam railway,  it  is  returning  to  Farnborough  green though  it  now  carries  a  Westinghouse  pump  for  train  brakes.

 

Pete

[tractionman]

14 hours ago, Adam FW said:

I don’t think Dapol have released the livery artwork for their 0-4-0ST Hawthorn Leslies yet but they had these handy print outs on their Warley stand showing the livery options.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It does say on the bottom of one of the sheets that these are artwork evaluations, so they may not be final

 

great to see these, spoilt for choice I reckon...

 

here's the original list for ref:

 

4S-024-001 Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0 Green Lined Yellow `Asbestos' 

4S-024-002 Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0 Black Lined Red `Henry'

4S-024-003 Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0 Maroon Lined Straw `Invincible

4S-024-004 Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0 Blue Lined Yellow Port of London Authority 56

4S-024-005 Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0 Blue Lined Straw NCB

4S-024-006 Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0 Green `Faraday'

4S-024-007 Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0 Green `Spider' Black Park Colliery

4S-024-008 Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0 Yellow Chevrons Newcastle Electric Supply 13

4S-024-009 Hawthorne Leslie 040 Lt Blue `Wallaby' Australian Iron & Steel Co.

 

thanks for the images @Adam FW

 

cheers,

 

Keith

 

 

 

[Dragonfly]

Spoilt for choice is right. I'd got a couple on order already, but seeing the photos now may lead to more...

[Porcy Mane]

On 26/11/2022 at 21:31, Adam FW said:

It does say on the bottom of one of the sheets that these are artwork evaluations, so they may not be final

 

Thanks for posting up the images.

 

If the NCB version is based on the prototype I think it is, then its main body colour should be light green not blue. Also should have the square topped sandboxes but I'd guess that would be wishing too much.

Rather than No. 8 possibly Jim McIvers ingine, the legendary No.81, may be a better choice. Paint job continually buffed up but only on the one side that faced the NCB Durham & Northumberland H.Q. Lasted in traffic until 1972 and visible at work from the ECML.

 

https://flic.kr/p/2jwhSob

 

[JSpencer]

I see the Dapol cat says "pre fitted sound".  I guess this will be only directly from them.

 

But nice to see more industrials with easy sound fitting options.

[adb968008]

Personally I think Hattons showed us the future when it comes to coupling holes vs solid buffer beams…

 

simply… make the whole buffer beam a separately fitted piece.

Make two, one with hole, the other solid.

Fit one, put the other in the parts bag.

 

If you want the hole for the coupling, insert that bufferbeam, if not, insert the other bufferbeam.

 

no need for inserts…

 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by adb968008

[Porcy Mane]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

simply… make the whole buffer beam a separately fitted piece.

Make two, one with hole, the other solid.

Fit one, put the other in the parts bag.

 

It's not like that on their AB.

[adb968008]

3 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

It's not like that on their AB.

It is on their 66..

 

 

maybe the new hands can teach the old boys some new tricks ?

 

😁

[Porcy Mane]

15 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

maybe the new hands can teach the old boys some new tricks ?

 

That's always been a truism.   🙂