The smallest Locomotive errors shouted about, but wagons, no comments ?

[Dad-1]

I love wagons, to me a good freight train rolling by is king amongst model railway running. Yet so many wagons are incomplete, inaccurate and this seems to be accepted without question.

Should any locomotive not come out perfect for it's claimed type there are screams from a thousand modellers. I recall the comments of the body being too wide, wrong shape roof line, you name it I've read about it ... BUT wagons ??

 

I'll start with the Dapol Iron Ore Hopper. Not a bad looking model yet somehow they have given an incorrect loading weight of 12 tons. In fact these started at 22 tons and later were upgraded to 24 tons. That is bad enough, but on checking the running number I find that they have used one that was on a 21 ton coal hopper, a very different wagon !!

 

Again staying with Dapol I've recently purchased 10 x 21 ton coal hoppers, mine came as sets of 5 at a very good price and I've started weathering them. I wondered exactly what diagram they were meant to represent as I know the hand brake lever sat very high on the early diagrams and these wagons couldn't represent them as the brake was low at solebar level. Of the 5 different running numbers I find that one was from a production run of 50 at Shildon, the remaining 4 from Birmingham, but these production runs were of diagram 146 which had very different strengthening ribs down the flanks, it being a full boxed in section. In addition the diagrem 146 referred to welded production. The Dapol wagon has thin reinforcing in line with diagram 143, but of course the diagram 143 needed the high brake lever and were of riveted construction as per the model

 

All 21 ton should have fine wire grab rails and operating rods, but I can forgive them being missing on the basis of cost. All Dapol had to do to make these accurate enough would be to use the right running numbers, a slight modification on certain side panels and high brake lever ..........

 

Strange, but I never read of wagon inaccuracies ............. what others do we know of ??????

 

My 10 nearly weathered .....

 

 

Dad-1

Edited December 19, 2011 by Dad-1

[coachmann]

In a loco-centric world, wagons are just freight train fodder! Just a bit of levity.

 

It is up to folk like you to give them a wider airing to get other folk interested. I have attempted this with coaches since 2007.

[NickL2008]

Wagon inaccuracies, well where do we begin?! no matter what era, there are plenty of inaccuracies for every wagon on the market out there. However there are some that dont have all that much wrong with them Bachmanns' MBA/MCA spring to mind, although thier more 2000 onwards wagons(?) ... I guess people may be happy with some wagons the way they are...

 

NL

Edited December 19, 2011 by NickL2008

[beast66606]

Try signalling ... wagons *generally* roll by but signals stay put, where they can be studied in their incorrect form / placement.

[Ian J.]

It's not just the wagons though. Errors on coaches are often left to slip by.

 

These days though I find I'm getting more pernickity about errors that could easily be avoided. If only a bit of care and sense-checking of CAD (and the like) to photographs was done, and the faux-pas corrected before committing to tool cutting or painting, then most of the complaints we have wouldn't be an issue.

[buffalo]

Strange, but I never read of wagon inaccuracies...

You're right that threads about particular wagon issues are few and far between, but they do appear. For example, this thread from a couple of days ago where the OP asked about whether an RTR model was accurate. On the other hand, folk often comment about innacuracies and how they've overcome them in workbench threads.

 

Nick

[Fat Controller]

I love wagons, to me a good freight train rolling by is king amongst model railway running. Yet so many wagons are incomplete, inaccurate and this seems to be accepted without question.

Should any locomotive not come out perfect for it's claimed type there are screams from a thousand modellers. I recall the comments of the body being too wide, wrong shape roof line, you name it I've read about it ... BUT wagons ??

 

I'll start with the Dapol Iron Ore Hopper. Not a bad looking model yet somehow they have given an incorrect loading weight of 12 tons. In fact these started at 22 tons and later were upgraded to 24 tons. That is bad enough, but on checking the running number I find that they have used one that was on a 21 ton coal hopper, a very different wagon !!

 

Again staying with Dapol I've recently purchased 10 x 21 ton coal hoppers, mine came as sets of 5 at a very good price and I've started weathering them. I wondered exactly what diagram they were meant to represent as I know the hand brake lever sat very high on the early diagrams and these wagons couldn't represent them as the brake was low at solebar level. Of the 5 different running numbers I find that one was from a production run of 50 at Shildon, the remaining 4 from Birmingham, but these production runs were of diagram 146 which had very different strengthening ribs down the flanks, it being a full boxed in section. In addition the diagrem 146 referred to welded production. The Dapol wagon has thin reinforcing in line with diagram 143, but of course the diagram 143 needed the high brake lever and were of riveted construction as per the model

 

All 21 ton should have fine wire grab rails and operating rods, but I can forgive them being missing on the basis of cost. All Dapol had to do to make these accurate enough would be to use the right running numbers, a slight modification on certain side panels and high brake lever ..........

 

Strange, but I never read of wagon inaccuracies ............. what others do we know of ??????

 

My 10 nearly weathered .....

 

 

Dad-1

The daft thing is that Dapol did once do the correct hopper body, IIRC, being the former Hornby-Dublo welded one. Dapol inherited the current wagon from the Airfix range, where it had shared an underframe with the GW-design 21t coal wagon. Of course, if one used the welded body on the chassis Dapol currently use, then the axleguards are wrong. I ended up using Parkside solebars in conjunction with Dapol bodies- the latter had the external ribs and riveting removed and replaced with plastic section. This was before Parkside released their own 21t hopper kits. The left-over underframes from the Dapol/Hornby wagons were fitted to Parkside 12t Pipe bodies, as Parkside supply these with heavy-duty plate axleguards- a rare error on their part.

If you want to use the correct style of brake gear (4 shoes on one side only, with the high brake lever), then Parkside should be able to supply the relevant sprue at a very reasonable price- I used this route for some underframes for BR 21t minerals which used ex-LNER hopper underframes.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Fat Controller

[Pennine MC]

 

Again staying with Dapol I've recently purchased 10 x 21 ton coal hoppers, ... I wondered exactly what diagram they were meant to represent as I know the hand brake lever sat very high on the early diagrams and these wagons couldn't represent them as the brake was low at solebar level. Of the 5 different running numbers I find that one was from a production run of 50 at Shildon, the remaining 4 from Birmingham, but these production runs were of diagram 146 which had very different strengthening ribs down the flanks, it being a full boxed in section. In addition the diagrem 146 referred to welded production. The Dapol wagon has thin reinforcing in line with diagram 143, but of course the diagram 143 needed the high brake lever and were of riveted construction as per the model

 

All 21 ton should have fine wire grab rails and operating rods, but I can forgive them being missing on the basis of cost. All Dapol had to do to make these accurate enough would be to use the right running numbers, a slight modification on certain side panels and high brake lever ..........

 

 

As Brian says, this wagon is one inherited by Dapol via the disparate confusing strands that evolved from 1970s RTR. Hornby also market it, with much the same inaccuracies and no doubt the same idea, to extract a steady revenue from something that owes them very little. IIRC though the Hornby Dublo 'SD' welded hopper was far too wide, so wouldnt sit easily on the ex-Airfix chassis anyway

 

Not a comment linked to the model as such, but I'd be careful about setting too much store by the diagram numbers for 21T hoppers. Even the most cursory checking against photos on Paul Bartlett's Zenfolio site will reveal many BR-built wagons (mostly the earlier builds) that were not actually built to the allocated diagram. The pukka LNER ones are probably even more varied.

[coachmann]

I've been put off wagon kits with their flimsy plastic or whitemetal underframe fittings. The perfect wagon kit would consist of parts suitable for the job....ie: moulded injection or etched body and solebars plus etched brass 'w' irons and brake gear for soldering together.

 

Seeing as that day may never dawn, I'm happy to let Hornby and Bachmann supply my wagon needs even though I am aware the underframes are pretty generalized. At least they withstand a rough shunt and stay on the track.

[PLD]

Broad generalisation, but there does seem to be a sliding scale of what degree of accuracy is demanded and what level of compromise/error is tolerated by the typical modeller.

 

From the top where absolute fidelity is obligatory (otherwise the head of the company's MD is demanded) to the bottom where any old thing will do to fill a space (often not even the right scale/period etc) the order is roughly:

1. Locomotives
   
2. Passenger Rolling Stock
   
3. Goods Stock
   
4. Railway infrastructure (track work, signalling)
   
5. Railway buildings
   
6. Road vehicles
   
7. Non-railway buildings
   
8. Other transport (e.g. canals)
   
9. Anything else outside the railway boundary (if you bother with it at all...)
   

 

Edited December 20, 2011 by PLD

[CWJ]

To add to PLD's post, any 'departmental' vehicles, on-track machines or plant will come in right at the bottom of the list! A couple of us have commented to this effect on the topic on Model Rail's new Network Rail MkI coach. To be fair on the manufacturers, many recent models are excellent, the Bachmann Autoballaster being a good example.

 

Returning to freight wagons, perhaps the reason for the 'relaxed' standards is the fact that when watching a passing train, most modellers and enthusiasts devote the majority of their attention to the locomotive. Also, the wagons will typically be viewed as a whole train, where the detail of each individual vehicle isn't really scrutinised. Obviously this doesn't apply on a smaller layout where odd wagons may be dotted around on full view.

 

Cheers,

 

Will

[Allegheny1600]

I've been put off wagon kits with their flimsy plastic or whitemetal underframe fittings. The perfect wagon kit would consist of parts suitable for the job....ie: moulded injection or etched body and solebars plus etched brass 'w' irons and brake gear for soldering together.

 

Seeing as that day may never dawn, I'm happy to let Hornby and Bachmann supply my wagon needs even though I am aware the underframes are pretty generalized. At least they withstand a rough shunt and stay on the track.

Such things are on their way!!!

Not sure if I can say any more than that but they will be to a very high standard!

In the meantime, I've always been pretty happy with products from Parkside, Slaters, et al.....

I always liked the (quite passable) look of the Hornby/Dapol 21T hopper but for me, it never ran very well!

Cheers,

John E.

PS I'm certainly a 'wagon nut', I'm sure my wagon collection outnumbers my locos by 10 to 1 but then, it should probably be more like 40 to 1! Ah well!

[Rivercider]

On the real railway locos are built to haul the wagons.

On a model railway wagons are (often) simply bought to give the locos something to haul.

 

cheers

[t-b-g]

I agree entirely that wagons are very much overlooked for far too long. Things do seem to be improving with more recent releases though.

 

Those steel hoppers have been around as models for many years now and although I haven't seen recent ones close up I don't think that they have changed much from their original (Airfix?) issue. I had a few when I was modelling BR period and modified the brake gear to look more like an ex LNER type as mine had an "E" number.

 

The quality and detail on some of the latest releases as RTR models eclipses all but the very best kit models (unless you work like Geoff Kent!) and if I was still interested in modelling BR period I would probably go with mainly RTR stuff, which has come on in leaps and bounds since a few years ago.

 

My friends who model the BR period are very impressed by the latest offerings from the likes of Bachmann and they are not the sort of people who will accept second rate models on their layouts!

[coachmann]

Once upon a time (1960s) I built a plank layout, a small Cyril Freezer style branch terminus and built a few wagons for the local goods. Each wagon was lovingly painted and was an individual. Heck, I've got five times more locos today than I had wagons in the 60's.

[jonny777]

Such things are on their way!!!

Not sure if I can say any more than that but they will be to a very high standard!

 

 

They are more than on their way. I have recently bought an 00 CovHop kit from Bill Bedford and it has etched brass underframes plus a moulded body.

 

I have not begun assembling it yet, but it certainly looks the business.

[Guest dilbert]

Broad generalisation, but there does seem to be a sliding scale of what degree of accuracy is demanded and what level of compromise/error is tolerated by the typical modeller.

 

From the top where absolute fidelity is obligatory (otherwise the head of the company's MD is demanded) to the bottom where any old thing will do to fill a space (often not even the right scale/period etc) the order is roughly:

1. Locomotives
   
2. Passenger Rolling Stock
   
3. Goods Stock
   

 

 

 

 

Taking the top three listed, from a RTR perpsective, then the higher the price of a new model creates a mental block when looking at adding detail - the expectation being that the model should be as near perfect and this proportional to the price of the model acquired. Two reasons : the first is that adding/modifying detail isn't always economical and secondly, if the changes are bodged, then frustration levels increase at a relative rate..

 

With a wagon a disaster is minimised whereas with a loco, extra expletives will resound and never forgotten.

 

The kit world is different for me in that during the build stage, it is generally easier to factor in modifications or additional details (= in general less hacking). I've also found over time that the spares box is loaded with bit's 'n pieces from previous kit builds. These can be bog standard items such as vacuum cylinders etc..or something very simple such as remnants of brass etches to make footboards/footsteps that can be made up to replace for example, plastic versions... dilbert

Edited December 20, 2011 by Mod3
Removed irrelevant comment - lets not start that debate again please.

[Rivercider]

I am no expert on wagon details, so would not know if there were the wrong axleboxes or inappropriate

brake gear on my wagons. At home I use rtr, if it looks right it will do, but I try to restrict the types I run.

 

I do agree with Dad-1 though about watching a passing freight train on an exhibition layout.

It is always nice to see a lengthy train where some thought has gone into the composition,

also a marshalling or goods yard where careful selection of wagon types/loads can add to a sense of time and place.

 

cheers

[Southernman46]

It's not just the wagons though. Errors on coaches are often left to slip by.

 

Agreed - the price tag on the 'ornby Gresley buffet was a mistake...........wasn't it.??

[Hollar]

You can make a huge improvement to the Dapol 21T hopper with Dave Bradwell's detailing fret. This allows you to upgrade 4 wagons using the original chassis, with a fully detailed sprung chassis for the 5th body. I found the body improvement quick and easy enough, but the chassis is a more serious undertaking though the instructions should see you through it ok. A pic of an original chassis model is attached to give an idea.

 

Tony McSean

[Dad-1]

Some interesting comments & thoughts.

 

Although I've spent nigh on 40 years building scale aircraft kits (still have 400 unmade in the loft) I have yet to 'attack' a wagon kit. I think my reluctance comes from wanting a representative number to make a reasonable length freight ..... in other words, 10 to say 50 of a particular wagon type. I know I'd never be able to keep the enthusiasm going after 2 or 3 identical kits.

 

Funny really when I think my 'pre-ordered' £56 Bachmann 3F is used to haul around 30 wagons that cost £240 or more !!!

 

Dad-1

[newbryford]

. I think my reluctance comes from wanting a representative number to make a reasonable length freight ..... in other words, 10 to say 50 of a particular wagon type. I know I'd never be able to keep the enthusiasm going after 2 or 3 identical kits.

 

I think that's pretty much spot on for us (mostly) loco-centric types, although I'm slowly getting through my wagon fleet.

Unless new, all wagons take on their own weathering patterns. Block trains often have wagons swapped in and out, so there's varying degrees of dirty/damaged/modification etc.

 

Nothing jars more than a rake of 30 identically airbrushed wagons with nothing else done.

 

My first major project to create an "individual" block train was a rake of 10 TEA's in various states of bitumen coating and I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the task.

 

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Mark Saunders]

You can make a huge improvement to the Dapol 21T hopper with Dave Bradwell's detailing fret. This allows you to upgrade 4 wagons using the original chassis, with a fully detailed sprung chassis for the 5th body. I found the body improvement quick and easy enough, but the chassis is a more serious undertaking though the instructions should see you through it ok. A pic of an original chassis model is attached to give an idea.

 

Tony McSean

 

The new Parkside LNER chassis fits the Airfix body quite well and mixed with detailing parts from Dave Bradwell can only get better.

 

Mark Saunders

[Guest jim s-w]

 

I'll start with the Dapol Iron Ore Hopper. Not a bad looking model yet somehow they have given an incorrect loading weight of 12 tons. In fact these started at 22 tons and later were upgraded to 24 tons. That is bad enough, but on checking the running number I find that they have used one that was on a 21 ton coal hopper, a very different wagon !!

 

 

Renumbering them is easy enough and if you need a rake you'll have to do that anyway. However the wrong type of chassis is something a bit more tricky! The example you have picked must be getting on for 40 years old by now and it was common practice to use a 'near enough' chassis back then. Modern wagons are a lot better but even then some of the newer Dapol wagons have had a pretty good slating from those who know about them, the Hornby HAA is hopeless shapewise and their coalfish is also very wrong. The Heljan dogfish got pretty poor reviews and the Hornby KFA comes with a completely made up container.

 

If you need convincing that people care about RTR wagons then read this thread - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/32834-ftg-models-sample-update/page__fromsearch__1

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[sir douglas]

reading this thread made me want to read a book that ive got, "detailing & improving RTR waggons" by Ian Rice, so i did. great read too