Dapol 142

[bigP]

--

Edited January 31, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[TomE]

Oh dear! The windows still seem to be wrong.

 

 

Should we be surprised? Dapol's track record on making changes to fundamental errors such as this isn't that good, in N Gauge at least, and it seems that even the intervening 2 year gap between this issue first being pointed out and this stage wasn't enough time for them to get it right. 

 

Dapol are making it very easy for me not to give them any money of late 

 

Tom. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by TomE

[Steven B]

I'm so disappointed that the miss-shaped body hasn't been corrected. I've been looking forward to getting several of these since they were first announced. I'll have to see one for real to see if it's something I can live with, otherwise I'll be pestering Ben and Mike at Revolution to give it a go.

 

Happy modelling.

 

Steven B.

[Karhedron]

I'm so disappointed that the miss-shaped body hasn't been corrected. I've been looking forward to getting several of these since they were first announced. I'll have to see one for real to see if it's something I can live with, otherwise I'll be pestering Ben and Mike at Revolution to give it a go.

Very disappointing. I sent Dapol plenty of photos highlighting how and where the distortion had occurred and explaining where it needed correcting. I got a polite letter thanking me for my input. Later it looked like the windows had been improved so I assumed it was heading in the right direction.

 

Sadly the taper on the lower part of the "face" has been stretched making it far too tall. In fact the whole tumblehome is wrong. Oh well, I won't be getting any.

[bigP]

--

Edited January 31, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[Revolution Mike]

Quoted post removed - AY

 

Nobby has answered your query very clearly: "it is not now 100% that Dapol will be here, the original idea was that DCC Supplies would have a Showcase of models on their stand. I do not know if this is now happening" - it may not be the answer you want ie he doesn't know what Dapol items DCC Supplies will be able to bring, but it is hardly DEMU's position to speak on behalf of Dapol!

Edited June 2, 2017 by Andy Y

[philiprporter]

Very disappointing. I sent Dapol plenty of photos highlighting how and where the distortion had occurred and explaining where it needed correcting. I got a polite letter thanking me for my input. Later it looked like the windows had been improved so I assumed it was heading in the right direction.

 

Sadly the taper on the lower part of the "face" has been stretched making it far too tall. In fact the whole tumblehome is wrong. Oh well, I won't be getting any.

Yes the tumblehome seems incorrect throughout - very sad to see this especially given that I had also contacted Dapol directly to point out the various issues  

[Robert Shrives]

Hi Gents,

Looking at the 142 windows up from 4.70 to 5.30 wide, length 8.37 .height Scaled at 1/148 is 26.08 from angel trains data of

3860 mm actual over pod is 27.5. Body height is 17.65.. Width taken at just inboard of first passenger door 18.88 to 19.97 between shell developments, real data at 1/148 scales at 18.91.  Later figures is  for revised tooling. 

Chassis is 16.25 over motor case. 

Thus body is fractionally over 1.5mm thick allowing for glazing insert. 

 

The tumblehome is quite visible in the door way where door is inset. There has to be a limit to tooling, plastic thickness and scale compromise and yes it is at the Tumblehome but it is better than the 153 having today compared.   

 

I have a 3d print of a 143 and chassis would fit inside except model has underframe attached but certainly promising.

 

Talking of the underframe - really sharp details the CAD and tooling is a joy  given the moulding.

 

In general looking at photos liveries are pretty good  and body types link up to painted numbers.

As always fine checking throws up a selection of could be improved so the work goes on and we can wait awhile

So no problem really except the lessors keep modifying liveries every five minutes - picture research a nightmare !! 

And as you all know it was not until the 22 arrived in model form that two books were published with priceless photos and I fully expect the pacer will be  just the same.... 

 

Finally the model has got the flexibly mounted corridor connection which is a nice touch - a crossover from the loco hauled SR coaches. 

 

regards

Robert 

Edited June 6, 2017 by Robert Shrives

[John M Upton]

Pre-production 142 in the display cabinet at Gaugemaster's little show today:

 

[ash39]

Pre-production 142 in the display cabinet at Gaugemaster's little show today:

20170618_103542.jpg

 

Got to say, body shape issues aside, the detail and moulding looks superb, particularly the rivets (I haven't counted them though!)

 

I know Dapol commented on the destination displays being corrected. I'm sure they'll look better when darker but it's a shame they couldn't have been done with a clear window with the display behind it. I suppose doing it they way they have done, they can also do the dot matrix style displays without changing the tooling.

[Les1952]

There were also Class 142s in the display case at Quorn today, but they're out of my period so I didn't look at them particularly.

 

However I did have a long chat with Joel, mainly about B4s, panniers and A3s amongst other kettles and the number of pairs of eyes they are using to get things sorted is impressive, far more than I would be able to muster.  Joel did add that no matter how many people look at an item something will still be missed, as I know from personal experience.

 

In N-gauge model terms don't forget that OVER 1000 people looked at the Dapol A3 paint samples at different exhibitions and NOT ONE pointed out the lining on the GN tender was too high (including me).  Also a couple of thousand or so looked at or even handled the original Ixion Manor without anyone getting the message across that it was overscale.  Those who claim to have said "I told them it was too big" obviously weren't speaking clearly enough.

 

I used to produce a show programme for a local operatic society. This was proof read by every member before being sent for printing.  On the fifth year a lady pointed out her name was incorrectly spelled, so it was corrected.  Looking back it had also been incorrectly spelled for the previous four years, and she herself had proof read those programmes and failed to spot it.  

 

It is remarkably easy for errors to be uncorrected, and anything involving plastics and/or making electrickery work will always be a compromise.

 

Les

[Dr Al]

In N-gauge model terms don't forget that OVER 1000 people looked at the Dapol A3 paint samples at different exhibitions and NOT ONE pointed out the lining on the GN tender

 

Well clearly they are asking the wrong people....

 

Cheers,

Alan

[TomE]

It is remarkably easy for errors to be uncorrected, and anything involving plastics and/or making electrickery work will always be a compromise.

 

It's such a shame that in this instance people did point out the error with the plastic, Dapol publicly acknowledged the error, and then still didn't get it right. 

 

 

Pre-production 142 in the display cabinet at Gaugemaster's little show today:

 

Thanks for posting that photo John, one of the clearest I've seen of the model to date. 

 

The too shallow tumblehome seems to exaggerate the window problem by giving the impression the sides are much flatter than they actually are and thus elongating them. It also makes the front of the cab look too flat below the window line. in fact for me the lower body profile looks closer to a Class 141 than 142.

 

This image from earlier in the thread highlights the problems in the model quite nicely I feel:

 

 

It's really frustrating because just a couple of very minor tweaks and it would have been pretty much there. I really would have liked a couple of these once Dapol got around to Provincial & GMPTE Orange/brown liveries, but I just can't see past these shape issues and so, for that reason, I'm out!

 

Tom. 

[John M Upton]

Although the 142 does not interest me all that much aside from a fondness of the Leyland National bus from which it is derived plus having owned a Hornby one that couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding back in days of old, the very first thing I noticed was the distinctive inward tumblehome is all but not there.  Does this mean that the chassis frame is now too wide as a result?

[philiprporter]

It was thanks to Dapol that I got into n-gauge modelling when they started giving Farish a run for their money, but if that pre-production shot really is how this is going to look when it reaches the shops then that has to be one of the most glaring overall 'shape' issues in recent times.

 

N-gauge is forgiving to some extent given the fact that most if the images we see are significantly magnified, but I can't see this one 'getting away with it' on that basis. As one of the many who pointed our various issues to Dapol (and had them acknowledged) this is really frustrating and as a die-hard modeller of the northern scene I was itching to get my hands on a few of these - but not on the basis of the sample photo here. 

 

Of more concern however is that fact that if this doesn't sell on the basis of these avoidable errors, we then risk that being interpreted by Dapol as low demand for n-gauge - and how many more projects will then be listed as in abeyance?

 

A bit gutted really Crowd funding beckons perhaps? Get this right and I can imagine these selling well?

[Neil]

Although the 142 does not interest me all that much aside from a fondness of the Leyland National bus from which it is derived plus having owned a Hornby one that couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding back in days of old, the very first thing I noticed was the distinctive inward tumblehome is all but not there.  Does this mean that the chassis frame is now too wide as a result?

 

I was wondering if it was the practicalities of chassis design, the need to accommodate wider than scale n gauge wheels, which has resulted in an over wide chassis  and hence the lack of tumblehome. Because to my four mill modellers eyes, n gauge is so tiny, I wondered if a bit of paint effect might come to the rescue. I've borrowed the above photo of the pre production model and digitally added a darker shade to the tumblehome of the lead car; see what you think.

 

 

I know it's not an ideal solution but perhaps it's a compromise that could be lived with.

[roundhouse]

I was wondering if it was the practicalities of chassis design, the need to accommodate wider than scale n gauge wheels, which has resulted in an over wide chassis  and hence the lack of tumblehome. Because to my four mill modellers eyes, n gauge is so tiny, I wondered if a bit of paint effect might come to the rescue. I've borrowed the above photo of the pre production model and digitally added a darker shade to the tumblehome of the lead car; see what you think.

 

donkey.png

 

I know it's not an ideal solution but perhaps it's a compromise that could be lived with.

To my eyes that does look a lot better. I wonder if it is possible to file down the bottom of the moulding by much without losing any of the body side even if I does make it a little delicate to handle when the body is off the chassis.

[Robert Shrives]

Hi ,

This looks much better and looks to be the way forward I have got a sample and asked on the N gauge forum but no replies over the thoughts of adding shading or a matt varnish to the lower area to fool the eye but your photoshop skills seals it for me it is the solution on the problem that Neil succinctly put - it has to run or look right and you are in to static models. The chassis is as fine as it can be and the plastic as thin as it can be and be moulded and be crushed by being handled.

 

I am very sorry that folk do not want to buy it and post 165 by Phil is a risk.

 

all I can say is the 68 is in N a leap from this older sort of model - despite some retooling the original flawed effort remains.

 

Having spent time as some of the eyes looking at this model this is as good as it can be got and made to run. The list of really small changes picked up from the factory created variations from the original works varied across the models was a days work but was down to the nit picking levels on the discussion of the colour of door button surrounds. The BIL indicator on the roof shoulder is left roof colour as it would only be orange when train stopped and doors released. In reaction to comments on MK.3s. In this example if you don`t like it then shoot this messenger !  

[bill badger]

The photos do make it look a bit odd compared to real life; the pronounced tumblehomes on these units are a key defining element in the overall shape and perception, but I'll reserved final judgement until I can see one in the flesh. Having said that, its a bit academic for me as my time frame requires units in the original blue and white striped livery, which isn't being done in this batch, unless I've missed something.

 

A common dilemma these days: Is no Pacer better than a bad Pacer...?

Edited June 20, 2017 by bill badger

[justin1985]

I have to agree with most of the comments here. My main modelling interests don't justify a Pacer at all (primarily modelling GE and some Scottish) but I was always strangely fond of the Hornby model as a kid, and would have been tempted to get one "just because", if it had been a really nice model. Unfortunately the shape issues are pretty hard to overlook when it would have been an indulgence, rather than a core model for a layout.

 

The false shadow weathering effect does look promising though - and possibly something to try on the 153 - any chance of a photoshop mockup of how it'd look on one of those?

 

I think their sales will suffer as a result. Hopefully the more promising looking 68 will make up for it in terms of N overall sales.

 

Justin

[bmthtrains - David]

That's a shame really - I had been looking forward to these, but for £115 there's too much wrong with it for me to justify the expense sadly. 

 

David

[TomE]

The false shadow weathering effect does look promising though - and possibly something to try on the 153 - any chance of a photoshop mockup of how it'd look on one of those?

Here's one I made earlier....

 

]

 

I was considering this as an option when the 153 was originally released but in the end never bought one.

 

Neil's post shows what a vast difference the appearance of having the correct tumblehome makes to the look of the model, but it would be much better if Dapol had done it right in the first place.

 

Tom.

[Steven B]

Surely painting the tumble-home to "correct" the shape is just as bad as painted panel lines?

 

The class 142 has been on top of my N Gauge wish list ever since I started in the scale. Based on the pictures I've seen I can't understand how a manufacturer can get something so right (class 68) and then so wrong (class 142). Looks like I'll be resurrecting my part built Worsley Works model.

 

Happy modelling.

 

Steven B.

[justin1985]

Thanks Tom - it does trick the eye enough to make a difference. A false tumblehome might be as bad as a painted panel line - but that's still better than no panel line, I think! In fact probably better than an exaggerated "trench" that some models have suffered. I think the underframe weathering that I did on mine actually exaggerates the slab sides, so it might be worth adding a dusting of weathering masked to that shape?

 

 

The 153 picture does remind me of the exaggerated silver lower window "frames" that really jump out and spoil the effect of that model. The visible metal portion of the lower part of the frames is virtually invisible at a distance on the real thing, but looks just as dominant as the top half on the model. I did plan to dismantle mine when I was detailing and weathering it, to try and do something about them. But I never figured out how to dismantle the 153 (or the 156) without damage. I wonder if careful use of T-Cut on a cocktail stick might do the job?

 

Justin

[bennyboy]

Surely painting the tumble-home to "correct" the shape is just as bad as painted panel lines?

 

The class 142 has been on top of my N Gauge wish list ever since I started in the scale. Based on the pictures I've seen I can't understand how a manufacturer can get something so right (class 68) and then so wrong (class 142).

 

 

 

Perhaps they laser scanned the 68, but did the 142 the old fashioned way as it was originally announced about seven years ago!