Dapol Britannia

[grahame]

That said the latest incarnations of steam from all manufacturers are now very good too and the performance "gap" is closer (Thinking latest Farish models, Dapol B17 and Ixion Manor).

 

I don't think the performance 'gap' is particularly closing, although kettle performance has improved, N gauge in general has been significantly "on the up" over the recent years. It's just that as kettles get better so too do D&E locos. They've also been getting better with developments like flywheels and axle bearing cup pick ups. The running out of the box of models like the Dapol class 58 and Farish class 24 is superb.

 

However, I'm hoping that the performance of the Dapol Brit will be another step improvement; it appears to have been designed and engineered with that in mind - there, that's got this thread back on track.

 

G.

[Dr Al]

 

The general point on D&E running better than steam may also be true overall - there are far fewer technical challenges putting a drivetrain in a "box". That said the latest incarnations of steam from all manufacturers are now very good too and the performance "gap" is closer (Thinking latest Farish models, Dapol B17 and Ixion Manor).

 

 

There's nothing much between them now - there are still some bad diesel runners too (Dapol class 73, earlier 66s and Hymeks to name a few). The latest designs of both D+E and steam are the best yet and performance shows it. The Dapol 86 in particular seems to have had little comment but is an excellent performer - better than the 58.

 

Overall the trend is good though - but as Roy has already questioned, is the Dapol Britannia a £120 model given some potential flaws that have been seen on the review samples? The jury is out for me until production models arrive.

 

It's certainly better than that elderly Minitrix model though!

 

Cheers,

Alan

[simplex]

WOW! If it wasn't for the N gauge coupler in the picture I would probably have to look at it more than twice to realise it is N scale. Very nice indeed.

[Kris]

I agree with the point about the screws on the coupling rods. This seems to spoil what looks to be an otherwise nice model.

[grahame]

There's nothing much between them now - there are still some bad diesel runners too (Dapol class 73,

 

I've never had a bad Dapol class 73 runner and I've got dozens of them. They all run superbly well; certainly a lot better than all the kettles I have.

 

G.

[grahame]

I agree with the point about the screws on the coupling rods. This seems to spoil what looks to be an otherwise nice model.

 

Yep, beit screws on Dapol or hex nuts on Farish, the coupling rod joints/fasteners on N gauge steam stock is very poor and could do with a significant step improvement in that area.

 

G.

[Roy L S]

Hi Grahame

 

I do agree that neither is perfect, but of the two I think the hex bolt method Farish use (also used on some 00 models made by both Hornby and Bachmann) is neater and less obtrusive than the cheap looking screws Dapol have employed on the Brit, and I have yet to find a pic of a real loco with provision for a crosshead screwdriver on their crankpins:-) I have just checked a few of my Dapol locos, and interestingly (Perhaps ironically) the B17 has hex bolts on front and read driving wheels while others employ a variety of other types of crank pin.

 

It is then an interesting exercise to checkout prototype losos, so I have scoped a number of pics of different locos from various regions (With different designers). Here there is variety too, and in a generic sense the hex bolt still appears the best solution overall but it is not that straightforward. If we take the example of the Brit or indeed the majority of BR Standard locos, the arrangement tends to vary even between axles on the same loco. For example the Brit uses aome kind of hollow crankpin on the front axle and rear too UNLESS there is a speedo drive fitted to the rear LHS wheel when a stud is used to hold the crank. The centre axle is a stud too to acommodate the various elements of valve-gear that meet at that point. This appears to repeat on the majority of Riddles designs, and when you look at the shape of the hollow pin, you kind of get what Dapol were trying to achieve with the round topped screws I think (Albeit not very successfully). Now if we discount the hex bolt, the next best solution would appear to be a tiny allen (Torx?) type bolt, so that the shape of the rounded pin could be retained then with a representation of the hollow centre. Not sure how feasible that would be.

 

To be honest though the thought running through my head as I checked out the various pics was that the designers are on a hiding to nothing - we are just so hard to please!

 

Finally on the topic of the Brit I was reminded that the first air-freighted production samples were lost in the crash at Dubai and the ones reviewed may not represent the finished item. A very fair point indeed and given the loss of life that ensued there one has to get things into perspective - it is only a hobby albeit an enjoyable one after all.

 

Regards

 

Roy

[Dr Al]

Not in my experience. I had 2, both were loud, mediocre runners - acceptable when compared to old Minitrix say, but nothing like the latest steam and diesel we are getting.

 

Cheers,

Alan

 

I've never had a bad Dapol class 73 runner and I've got dozens of them. They all run superbly well; certainly a lot better than all the kettles I have.

[Dr Al]

I agree - the Farish solution is far less obtrusive.

 

However, if Dapol have used a standard BA or metric threaded screw it may be possible to replace them with hex bolts or something less obtrusive. Maybe even Farish hex bolts....

 

It has to be remembered also that valve gear does have to be strong enough to withstand handling (sometimes rough!) so will need compromises at times.

 

Lets wait and see what production models look like.

 

Cheers,

Alan

 

I do agree that neither is perfect, but of the two I think the hex bolt method Farish use (also used on some 00 models made by both Hornby and Bachmann) is neater and less obtrusive than the cheap looking screws Dapol have employed on the Brit, and I have yet to find a pic of a real loco with provision for a crosshead screwdriver on their crankpins:-) I have just checked a few of my Dapol locos, and interestingly (Perhaps ironically) the B17 has hex bolts on front and read driving wheels while others employ a variety of other types of crank pin.

[Kris]

Another solution would be some form of cap that fits into the screw head.

[Roy L S]

Not in my experience. I had 2, both were loud, mediocre runners - acceptable when compared to old Minitrix say, but nothing like the latest steam and diesel we are getting.

 

Cheers,

Alan

 

I thought I'd spend some time in the railway room doing some comparisons.

 

I have a single Large Logo Dapol 73 from the original production (Cast chassis). Haven't had it out of the box in ages so thought I'd have a play just in the interests of science:-)It runs smoothly enough but is not exactly quiet, especially compared to Farish 24 (just for example)and a lot noisier than the 4MT Mogul I had running at the same time in the opposite direction. I also tried my GBRF 66 - when taken out of the box and put on the track it barely moved, it takes ages for the mechaninsm to free up at all with this one - I think this was a common issue at the time. Cracking looking loco though. Then I ran sme steamers - a pair of my new "Black Fives" in "Double Harness" on a long freight - well matched mechanisms, very smooth indeed - looked fabulous.

 

I have a fair number of both and have no particular axe to grind, I model transition and like green diesels almost as much as steam locos. The latest Farish diesels run smoothly and quietly and have great haulage capacity (I have no Dapol Hymek to compare but am sure the story would be the same) are loaded with features and beautifully made and detailed.

 

Steam - Ixion Manor and Dapol B17, both smooth but slightly noisy, both have amazing slow running capability and will pull a decent load. The Manor has finer detail than the B17 but arguably benefitted from a redesign and is more modern tooling. I am ignoring the 9Fs Ivatts, M7's etc as I feel even these have been left behind now.

 

My Farish steam locos are smooth quiet runners, slow running maybe not quite as good as the above two - but they are exceptional. With my Jubs, Scots and Black Fives I made the concious decision to sacrifice haulage for pickup by swopping the rear tender wheelsets. In this form all can mangage 9 coaches no bother at all probably more. Detail and finish is exquisite. The 4MT for it's size is incredibly powerful - 12 coaches no bother at all. As for Dapol 9F etc I discounted the compariatively recent V2 as it falls down in too many areas by comparison. I'd love to see it retooled and tender-driven but I doubt it will happen.

 

My conclusion from my little "play" is that for sure in every area quality has moved on immeasurably from where British N was 10 years ago. Both steam and diesel run beautifully smoothly and reliably.

 

Arguably there may be, by nature of their complexity more QC issues with steam around their assembly leading to poor running with some - not my personal experience - maybe I'm just lucky?

 

Roy

[Roy L S]

Another solution would be some form of cap that fits into the screw head.

 

Hi Kris

 

That would have the advantage of not having to remanufacture any of the existing loco components but how would it be held securely in position with what can be quite rapidly moving parts I wonder?

 

I suspect it is far too late to do anything now about the initial production batches which are presumably still in a container on the "high seas" somewhere, but to be fair to Dapol they are not adverse to introducing improvements on future batches of models as they proved with the 9Fs so who knows.

 

What appears universally recognised is that in spite of these "niggles" the Brit has a well designed mechanism and runs and pulls well. I am content to wait and see how the production batches compare to the test samples given to the likes of "Model Rail" hopefully not long now.

 

Regards

 

Roy

[Kris]

Hi Kris

 

That would have the advantage of not having to remanufacture any of the existing loco components but how would it be held securely in position with what can be quite rapidly moving parts I wonder?

 

 

I've no idea as to how the part could be secured.

 

 

[Dr Al]

Reminds me of an old O-Gauge trick to cover axle securing nuts - just fill the head with a small amount of plasticene and paint. This allows the item to still be unbolted but covers the obtrusive head.

 

I'm sure this would work on the screws on the Brit.

 

Cheers,

Alan

 

I've no idea as to how the part could be secured.

 

 

[Kris]

How well did this stay on Alan? Did the slightly larger size of the O gauge version allow for the extra addition required? I had thought of something more like the screw caps you get in DIY furniture, but flat rather than domed. I don't feel that these could be made both thin enough and strong enough.

 

Still this may all prove to be a mute point when the production models turn up.

[grahame]

is neater and less obtrusive than the cheap looking screws Dapol have employed on the Brit,

 

Whether it is neater and less obtrusive is basically subjective and a personal opinion as I can accept that you think that (although I think both are just as bad and both could be improved) but what makes you think the screw is particularly "cheap" (presumable for screws in general as well as an alternative to a bolt). Do you have information about the costs? IMO it just makes you sound excessively and unnecessarilly negative about Dapol.

 

G.

[Dr Al]

How well did this stay on Alan? Did the slightly larger size of the O gauge version allow for the extra addition required? I had thought of something more like the screw caps you get in DIY furniture, but flat rather than domed. I don't feel that these could be made both thin enough and strong enough.

 

Stayed on fine, but came off when required to be dismantled. Don't see why it wouldn't work on a smaller scale.

 

Cheers,

Alan

[Dr Al]

what makes you think the screw is particularly "cheap"......Do you have information about the costs?

 

In this instance it's cheap looking for me as it clearly has seen no thought go into it as to looks. Seems unlike Dapol who tend to do well on looks and fall down on the mechanisms.

 

But on a £120 model you would expect a better solution than this.

 

Having said that, it is definitely emphasised in these pictures, as the screws are blackened and the coupling rods are not.

 

But before the toys leave the pram, we should wait and see what appears in the shops .

 

IMO it just makes you sound excessively and unnecessarilly negative about Dapol.

 

This is a slightly unfair comment to Roy - especially when it's well known in these circles that you yourself are heavily pro-Dapol biased, down on Bachmann and a personal friend of George Smith....

 

Cheers,

Alan

[Roy L S]

Grahame

 

I am glad you chose to "snip" that particular sentence. If you read it again you will notice that I said cheap LOOKING. I have no idea (and no particular wish to find out) the unit cost as versus the hex bolt and impact if any on production costs. It was, as you acknowledge a subjective observation, it is the impact of the screws on the overall look of the product that grates with me (and I note others). Go look at prototype steam locos and tell me how many you can find with a monsterous Phillips type screw holding the connecting rods on

 

I also said I had looked at lots of pictures of prototypes and acknowledged that the different types of crankpins used would be a nightmare for model designers and that overall I felt the Hex bolt is the best GENERIC solution. I was not "shooting from the hip" I had done some research to check. The vagaries of the Riddles Standards is a case in point and the ideal solution would be to manufacture exactly to the spec of each prototype but that is not going to happen I suspect. Who would have thought there would be different crankpins on front and rear wheelsets of the same loco for example?

 

I do not think I am being excessively or unnecessarily negative about Dapol, I am fully entitled to my opinion and I would have made the same observations whoever had produced the model, be it Farish, Fleischmann, Dapol or whoever, the manufacturer is irrelevant.

 

Steam Loco wise, yes, I will not deny that at present my preference is Farish, I think they are better engineered, run better and are and better finished. Just in the same way I prefer Volkswagen cars to say Ford or Citroen. I am allowed to express this opinion and I express it as a consumer only (that is to say I have no other connection).

 

Regards

 

Roy

[gelboy45]

Why don't we just persuade Kato to enter British N.

 

Then we wouldn't have to decide which 'camp' we're in.

 

I jest.

 

Gerry ;o)))

[orcadian]

Whilst I agree that the screw-head clearly is unprototypical, I would be surprised if there is an N gauge modeller who does not own a suitable screwdriverto re-tighten or remove it! I have failed to find a source of a reasonably-priced set of very small hex nut drivers or box spanners. This has even been an issue in 00 gauge, mentioned fairly frequently on other Forums, etc since Hornby attached a speedometer drive via the hex-headed crank pins. For a time, there was a suitable spanner issued with Hornby live steam locos, but my local Hornby dealer tells me that even this is now not available!

 

So the Dapol solution (on the samples we have seen so far, but do we know this is the same on the production run?) gives a solution which is more user-friendly but purist detail unfriendly. perhaps this is a necessary compromise?

 

Also, at what distance do we normally see working, moving N gauge models? Digital cameras can have very close-focussing and quite high magnification - the 'mark 1 eyeball' is far less sensitive at normal working distance!

 

As others have hinted, the Dapol 'Brit', even with its screws, has far finer valve gear, connecting rods wheel profile, etc than the Minitrix 'coarse scale' ever had! No, it's not perfect, but I definitely prefer the Dapol 'Brit' to the Minitrix one!

[Roy L S]

Whilst I agree that the screw-head clearly is unprototypical, I would be surprised if there is an N gauge modeller who does not own a suitable screwdriverto re-tighten or remove it! I have failed to find a source of a reasonably-priced set of very small hex nut drivers or box spanners. This has even been an issue in 00 gauge, mentioned fairly frequently on other Forums, etc since Hornby attached a speedometer drive via the hex-headed crank pins. For a time, there was a suitable spanner issued with Hornby live steam locos, but my local Hornby dealer tells me that even this is now not available!

 

So the Dapol solution (on the samples we have seen so far, but do we know this is the same on the production run?) gives a solution which is more user-friendly but purist detail unfriendly. perhaps this is a necessary compromise?

 

Also, at what distance do we normally see working, moving N gauge models? Digital cameras can have very close-focussing and quite high magnification - the 'mark 1 eyeball' is far less sensitive at normal working distance!

 

As others have hinted, the Dapol 'Brit', even with its screws, has far finer valve gear, connecting rods wheel profile, etc than the Minitrix 'coarse scale' ever had! No, it's not perfect, but I definitely prefer the Dapol 'Brit' to the Minitrix one!

 

It is probably pretty academic because I doubt it will happen but had hex bolts replaced the crosshead screws my suggestion was that Dapol include a little box-spanner with the loco rather than people having to source one themselves. That said, I have a set somewhere rather similar to jewellers screwdrivers picked up from a "Pound Store" some while back.

 

It may be that with blackened valve-gear on the production models these screws will be less obtrusive but I would still argue that on a £120 product a better solution to the issue of removing rods to replace traction tyres might easily have been found.

 

No question at all it is streets and streets ahead of the old Minitrix "Brit" but as that had it's origins in the early 1970's and was based around a german loco's chassis I would be really concerned if it hadn't been the case!

 

Regards

 

Roy

[Butler Henderson]

Whilst I agree that the screw-head clearly is unprototypical, I would be surprised if there is an N gauge modeller who does not own a suitable screwdriverto re-tighten or remove it! I have failed to find a source of a reasonably-priced set of very small hex nut drivers or box spanners. This has even been an issue in 00 gauge, mentioned fairly frequently on other Forums, etc since Hornby attached a speedometer drive via the hex-headed crank pins. For a time, there was a suitable spanner issued with Hornby live steam locos, but my local Hornby dealer tells me that even this is now not available!

 

Try East Kent Models.

[grahame]

This is a slightly unfair comment to Roy - especially when it's well known in these circles that you yourself are heavily pro-Dapol biased, down on Bachmann and a personal friend of George Smith.

 

Incorrect comments like that shows you just how wrong you can be ....... and about most things.

 

I know Colin at Bachmann better than George at Dapol.

 

G.

[grahame]

If you read it again you will notice that I said cheap LOOKING.

 

Don't need to read it again. But again, on what basis do you judge and think and can justify that it is cheap looking?

 

G.