A4 Dapol A4 streaks in.

[Elvinley]

I have used my Gaugemaster track cleaner with no issues with Dapol, Farish and UM locos for some years now. I am unsure what possible damage can be done.

[Karhedron]

I know that you should not use the things when running on DCC as it can fry the chips. I hadn't heard any problems with normal DC though.

[Elvinley]

I can't use it with my Peco Collett as that is chipped from the factory

[DapolDave]

Hi guys,

 

the instructions for the A4 and A3 models (as they will for all re-runs of these and other models plus new ones as well) state...........

 

"Do not, at any time, use this model with an electronic track cleaner as it may cause considerable electronic damage to your model"

 

It also states "It is important that you use an appropriate 'N' gauge controller as 'OO' controllers (both new and old) may not allow the measure of control required for our super fine 'N' motors."

 

Oh the things i could add, but i'll save them for my memoirs

cheers

Dave

[queensquare]

I have used my Gaugemaster track cleaner with no issues with Dapol, Farish and UM locos for some years now. I am unsure what possible damage can be done.

 

Likewise, I've used a Gaugemaster track cleaner on Highbury for about twelve years with no ill effects on a very wide range of motors.

That said, under no circumstances should you attempt to run a loco with a DCC chip fitted - it will cook it in seconds.

 

Jerry

[Elvinley]

We need a Gaugemaster spokesperson on here as well!

[TomE]

I had a quick look over the A4 at Alexandra Palace, and there is no denying it is an impressive model. Certainly light years ahead of the old Farish offering. One will certainly end up in the loco inventory as 60019 at some point I’m sure. However, as others have mentioned earlier in the thread, I can see some issues, and to try and illustrate this I've tried to find the closest comparison photos I can. I should stress at this point I am by no means an expert on the A4, so these comments are based on my own observations of the real thing.

 

The cylinder issue has also been covered and highlighted enough, so we’ll move on from that!

 

 

From the above image, I believe the curvature of along the top of the boiler is incorrect. On the prototype, it curves up towards the 'dome', then is almost flat, or may even curve down slightly to meet the forward point of the cab. On the model the curve seems to be one long continuous curve from front to back. It's difficult to say 100% exactly where the problem originates from photographic comparisons, but I think it’s hard to say that there isn’t a problem here. The model lacks that rather distinctive hump in the centre of the boiler.

 

The other issue which shouts out, is the curve of the handrails. On the prototype this is quite a sharp curve around the point where the lining separates green from black of the smokebox, however on the model there is a much more gentle curve. The rear of the hand rail also doesn't curve down enough at the cab end. It should terminate just below the bottom of the forward spectacle. You can see above that it doesn't do this.

 

I can’t be 100% sure from the above comparison but the cab also appears to be slightly compressed in length there not being enough of the flat section of running plate continuing aft, however this may be to allow negotiation of sharper curves.The combination of these things, and the amount of daylight showing through the Cartazzi results in a nose down, cab up appearance, at least to my eye anyway.

 

What is possibly more frustrating, is that the forthcoming Western is likely to be the best RTR model released to date as a result of direct input from knowledgeable individuals on this forum, and I have a lot of respect for Dapol for doing that. But perhaps if that same level of interaction had been engaged with here, then these issues could have been caught out before it got to this point.

 

All the above said, will I still buy one? Yes, but only because the alternative is a hell of a lot worse.

 

Tom.

[Elvinley]

Hi guys,

 

the instructions for the A4 and A3 models (as they will for all re-runs of these and other models plus new ones as well) state...........

 

"Do not, at any time, use this model with an electronic track cleaner as it may cause considerable electronic damage to your model"

 

It also states "It is important that you use an appropriate 'N' gauge controller as 'OO' controllers (both new and old) may not allow the measure of control required for our super fine 'N' motors."

 

Oh the things i could add, but i'll save them for my memoirs

cheers

Dave

 

So this will invalidate the warranty? What about the warranty for the locos where this isn't mentioned in the instructions?

[Western Scottish]

Hi Bomag,

 

In the 5 years that i have been here we have always told customers not to use electronic track cleaners with our products.

 

We havnt until now actually put this in our instructions but believe me i have personally told many, many customers.

 

I dont know of many people now that would recommend them with modern build locomotives and even fewer perhaps with N gauge in General.

There are pro's and cons of course and no doubt there are those on here that fall into either camp.

 

However, our camp is firmly in the cons, and as company policy we do not recommend them at all with out products.

This is not to say you cannot use them, as this of course is your choice, we just ask that if you do you just have them switched out for Dapol related items.

 

Hope this helps

Cheers

Dave

 

While I'm sure Dave has mentioned this in direct conversation , I'm also reasonably sure that this is not widespread knowledge. It really needs to be highlighted in instructions. I have Gaugemaster HF cleaners which do a great job for me I was certainly not aware of this and if it hadn't been for Elvinleys note I would have fallen into the trap. I know manufacturers can't cover everything but , like DCC is not compatible with HF cleaners if analogue models are also not compatible for whatever reason I'd expect a highlighted statement in the instructions or even the box (how many of us open the box , put it on the track, without reading the instructions!)

 

While I know this is "N" Gauge is the same also true of the forthcomming "OO" Western?

[Bomag]

Hi guys,

 

the instructions for the A4 and A3 models (as they will for all re-runs of these and other models plus new ones as well) state...........

 

"Do not, at any time, use this model with an electronic track cleaner as it may cause considerable electronic damage to your model"

 

It also states "It is important that you use an appropriate 'N' gauge controller as 'OO' controllers (both new and old) may not allow the measure of control required for our super fine 'N' motors."

 

Oh the things i could add, but i'll save them for my memoirs

cheers

Dave

 

Is this limitation because you have have deliberately designed the products not be compatible or it is not compatible as a secondary issue of the design?

 

i would have considered an incompatibility with a common product or accessory such an electric track cleaner, or alternatively code 80 rail, rapido couplings etc should be clearly stated in publicity.

 

 

Also, and this is a genuine question, what is an 'appropriate' N gauge controller? What are the performance criteria which a controller needs to meet to be 'appropriate'.

[DapolDave]

Hi Bomag, so the previous question you posed wasn't genuine? Just pulling your leg. :-)

 

Track cleaners ( electronic) are an after sales item and not a necessity to run model railways. As such I'm pretty sure model railway locomotives aren't designed to take them not account, but more the other way round. I know of no electric track cleaner company that has told Dapol that theirs is compatible with our products, and I know of no company asking for mechanism current draw and specs to check against for their cleaners. After all motors and electronics change, and after sales items from 3rd parties change their models etc to be compatible.

 

Now, some people have had no problems running them with N gauge, but conversely some have and i'm confident those will be along soon to give their opinion on the matter.

 

So, as a matter of ourselves having actually had customers have problems using electronic track cleaners with our products. I seem to remember having a problem myself back a good few years ( more than 10) with a uk built loco and a track cleaner.

 

So with the pro's and cons of using them, Dapol cannot really be blamed for not making them expressively electronic track cleaner friendly, when the locomotives are DCC and 12v DC friendly as standard.

 

As for a suitable controller, well I cannot recommend a specific controller, however most that claim to be N gauge friendly will give you the necessary fine control to take advantage of today's and maybe tomorrows motor technology.

 

After all, there are customers who phone me up asking why their OO controller that's 25 years old won't run our loco's properly. Those customers ALWAYS benefit from changing controller to one that gives fine control.

 

But, for the non wary there are traps to easily fall into.....like certain catalogued DCC controllers that create 80+v power spikes ( these are catalogued spikes) or feedback controllers that burn out pick up springs on the original 158 ( I know I had 3 in a week using a ECM compspeed that blew thei springs, or Dapols 153 + 156.

I look forward with interest to the proposed cordless motors in N gauge as I have known for many years the associated problems that can be had using them with unsuitable controllers. There's a comment or 2 this week on the N gauge yahoo group about this incidentally.

 

Long mail and I hope it covers a few things.

Cheers

Dave

 

[DapolDave]

Guilty as charged m'lud, especially when asked to put up flat packed furniture ;-)

[Elvinley]

So the A4 instructions which expressly state that HF cleaners cannot be used make this clear, but this wasn't mentioned on previous products that I can remember. Would it be fair to say that it wasn't recommended before but would now void the warranty?

 

I am considering buying an A4 which I could use without the HF cleaner, and am in fact reconsidering my use of the cleaner altogether now. I believe Gaugemaster controllers are some of the best for N gauge and so I trusted that their HF cleaner would be ok to use.

[DapolDave]

Hi Elvinley,

 

No question we would honour any warranty where a ETC as been used and it is not specified/recommend not to do so in the instructions and the locomotive develops a fault.

 

I think this will be a progressive introduction to our instructions from now on though, not items that are already out there on sale or running happily in modellers homes.

Cheers

Dave

[Elvinley]

Thanks for clarifying this Dave. Much appreciated.

[DapolDave]

No problem :-)

Have a good weekend

Dave

[CF MRC]

 

 

 

From the above image, I believe the curvature of along the top of the boiler is incorrect. On the prototype, it curves up towards the 'dome', then is almost flat, or may even curve down slightly to meet the forward point of the cab. On the model the curve seems to be one long continuous curve from front to back. It's difficult to say 100% exactly where the problem originates from photographic comparisons, but I think it’s hard to say that there isn’t a problem here. The model lacks that rather distinctive hump in the centre of the boiler.

 

 

 

Tom.

 

I haven't seen the model in the flesh yet, but I don't think the boiler cladding shape is wrong. I have made and carved a few A4s over the years and the boiler is effectively flat from the dome cover to the V of the cab. It often looks as if it goes down when viewed slightly from behind (as in your prototype photograph) because of the change in width over the Wooten firebox. If you want a truly awkward shape to reproduce in model form look at the streamlined P2! The handrails do not curve down enough at the back, but would be OK for the original engine build: before they lowered them so that the cleaners could reach.

 

In response to further postings on this thread, we have always used electronic track cleaners on Copoenhagen Fields and not had any problems with any type of motor: coreless and iron laminations. Stewart Hine was not worried about them when we asked twenty years ago. We have always used the Pentroller on CF and more recently the Pictroller - which is really good.

 

Tim

 

 

[Rob Hayes]

i was told that kato controllers are good for Dapol locos. and also is it that the high frequency of track cleaners interfere with the pcb dcc blanking plug which is actually a chip that smooths out dc current to make a loco perform better on dc, like dcc these can fry with a track cleaner causing a short and causing your motor to blow. so turn those track cleaners off. and use some goo gone on your track, works for me.

 

also try making a wagon with tubes under that can fit ciggarette filters soaked with goo gone that touch the rails, shunt this around to clear track and then replace filters. simples.

[Lewishambill]

I had a quick look over the A4 at Alexandra Palace, and there is no denying it is an impressive model. Certainly light years ahead of the old Farish offering. One will certainly end up in the loco inventory as 60019 at some point I’m sure. However, as others have mentioned earlier in the thread, I can see some issues, and to try and illustrate this I've tried to find the closest comparison photos I can. I should stress at this point I am by no means an expert on the A4, so these comments are based on my own observations of the real thing.

 

The cylinder issue has also been covered and highlighted enough, so we’ll move on from that!

 

 

From the above image, I believe the curvature of along the top of the boiler is incorrect. On the prototype, it curves up towards the 'dome', then is almost flat, or may even curve down slightly to meet the forward point of the cab. On the model the curve seems to be one long continuous curve from front to back. It's difficult to say 100% exactly where the problem originates from photographic comparisons, but I think it’s hard to say that there isn’t a problem here. The model lacks that rather distinctive hump in the centre of the boiler.

 

The other issue which shouts out, is the curve of the handrails. On the prototype this is quite a sharp curve around the point where the lining separates green from black of the smokebox, however on the model there is a much more gentle curve. The rear of the hand rail also doesn't curve down enough at the cab end. It should terminate just below the bottom of the forward spectacle. You can see above that it doesn't do this.

 

I can’t be 100% sure from the above comparison but the cab also appears to be slightly compressed in length there not being enough of the flat section of running plate continuing aft, however this may be to allow negotiation of sharper curves.The combination of these things, and the amount of daylight showing through the Cartazzi results in a nose down, cab up appearance, at least to my eye anyway.

 

What is possibly more frustrating, is that the forthcoming Western is likely to be the best RTR model released to date as a result of direct input from knowledgeable individuals on this forum, and I have a lot of respect for Dapol for doing that. But perhaps if that same level of interaction had been engaged with here, then these issues could have been caught out before it got to this point.

 

All the above said, will I still buy one? Yes, but only because the alternative is a hell of a lot worse.

 

Tom.

 

The more I look at the bottom picture in the post above by TomE the more I think it's not as much the casing shape as the way it sits on the chassis, as someone else pointed out earlier. The cab end is too high and the front too low, look at the cab rainstrip, it seems to be leaning forward (although it could be that the low slidebars forced it to be sat on the chassis this way).

I think like the B1, this was rushed towards the end (after the body was more or less complete) in case of Bachmann announced competition, after all Bachmann are going through their Poole aquired range and replacing the dead wood, and maybe the pacifics were next (one the Duchess is).

[NZmodeller]

HI Everyone,

 

I have to say I'm struggling with the logic when someone finds the (inevitable) flaw in a new model and then as a result insists the old one is better. Maybe if they are so sure we should be shown similar extreme close ups of the underscale solid wheels, lack of brakes or glazing, the visible phosphor bronze pickups etc. etc. on the Farish Model. It has also been pointed out by those who have scratchbuilt the class that perspective from photographs can be deceiving too so it can be a little over critical to juxtapose 2 views especially when the tender is derailed!

 

For me the only issue is the gap between loco and tender but I can understand why that is the case. I'm not totally convinced with the Britannia solution with it's slimmed down cab doors so in a way I'm pleased it is as it is with no compromises to the cab shape and the owners can close the gap to suit their own needs.

 

Maybe Dapol Dave could consider a shorter drawbar/driveshaft kit for this and the A3s?

 

All in all it appears to be a fantastic looking model, perhaps just short of as good as it gets but certainly as good as you are going to get for the forseeable future.

 

I was going to wait for one with valances but I don't think I can now.

 

Peter

 

Peter

[Pennine MC]

I have to say I'm struggling with the logic when someone finds the (inevitable) flaw in a new model and then as a result insists the old one is better. Maybe if they are so sure we should be shown similar extreme close ups of the underscale solid wheels, lack of brakes or glazing, the visible phosphor bronze pickups etc. etc. on the Farish Model.

 

I dont think anybody has said the old one is better overall, have they? All I've seen is just that either *some* aspects of it are better, or that it may be a better basis for those who want to carry out improvements.

[oreamnos]

I dont think anybody has said the old one is better overall, have they? All I've seen is just that either *some* aspects of it are better, or that it may be a better basis for those who want to carry out improvements.

 

Yes, I think you're correct. It seems everyone has his own little quibble or two; I know mine are the valance over the cylinders and the daylight above the rear bogie. But I pulled my Farish A4 down from the shelf last night and had to laugh at how primitive it looks compared to the new Dapol. The lack of separately fitted details, the front bogie, the undersized drivers, etc., really date the Farish model. (I will say it runs like a dream though, down to a crawling pace.)

 

My sense is from the comments is that some people are just lamenting that having gone to such lengths and gotten so close, Dapol didn't get it exactly spot on. I don't think that is really a fair standard to hold it to, though, particularly in N gauge.

 

Were I to come into a boat load of disposable income I'd certainly upgrade to the Dapol but as things are my Farish A4 will suffice.

 

Matt

[Bomag]

Hi Bomag, so the previous question you posed wasn't genuine? Just pulling your leg. :-)

 

Track cleaners ( electronic) are an after sales item and not a necessity to run model railways. As such I'm pretty sure model railway locomotives aren't designed to take them not account, but more the other way round. I know of no electric track cleaner company that has told Dapol that theirs is compatible with our products, and I know of no company asking for mechanism current draw and specs to check against for their cleaners. After all motors and electronics change, and after sales items from 3rd parties change their models etc to be compatible.

 

So with the pro's and cons of using them, Dapol cannot really be blamed for not making them expressively electronic track cleaner friendly, when the locomotives are DCC and 12v DC friendly as standard.

 

As for a suitable controller, well I cannot recommend a specific controller, however most that claim to be N gauge friendly will give you the necessary fine control to take advantage of today's and maybe tomorrows motor technology.

 

Long mail and I hope it covers a few things.

Cheers

Dave

 

Dave

 

The reference to a genuine question assumed that the first one I asked would not get answered fully. The double negative in your reply still leaves the issue in doubt. If a manufacturer designs in compatibility for a subset of a market e.g. DCC I would also expect the manufacturer to make products which are compatible for a similar and well know subset such as electronic track cleaners unless there was specific reason to design it not to be compatible. From the information provided so far I infer the A4 may or may not be OK with an electronic track cleaner (and you have not designed to be specifically not compatible) but you are implying that you are excluding in the warranty any damage to the engine if used with a track cleaner even if the damage related in no way to the operation of the track cleaner. Given that in an earlier post you herald a 'no quibble' warranty this issue is, to me, a dirty great big quibble.

 

In respect to the specification of an 'appropriate' controller I was not looking for a specific controller to be recommended. Being an engineer I like a performance specification which I can check against a product - so should I be looking at a specific output, or a voltage profile, or a maximum amperage?

 

Dave

[DapolDave]

Hi Bomag,

 

I appreciate your background as an engineer, but i think you may just be over analysing the situation somewhat.

 

Any locomotive that carries a 'W' on the box or on the bottom of the locomotive is not recommended for use wth an ETC and as such the warranty will not cover repairs where an ETC is used. It really is that simple.

If you wish clarification on the potential harm that ETC's can do and others points of view on them please check out the postings on this link .................

http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=4909.0

 

As for controllers, well as long as you use a controller that is specified to have been tested and approved for running, by the controllers manufacturer, with N gauge locomotives, then you should be ok. Our locomotives are warrantied for use with DCC and DC, however a quick look round the forums will show you that some controllers are not so good, feedback being a problem with others, and some more bespoke ones being the dogs doodas. Indeed the same can be said of DCC controllers too. Some have electrical spikes (measured) of 70-80V which is very worrying i'm sure you will agree. So failure for Dapol to mention this in the instructions would be remiss, firstly because the customer wont be getting the best out of their loco if they use a non N gauge designed compatible controller, and secondly any faults that may occur due to the use of a non N gauge designed compatible controller could be blamed on the lack of QC and care by Dapol with the locomotive.

 

I hope this helps clarify things for you.

cheers

Dave

[jagman]

What a fantastic job. Well done Dapol and the team behind this project I'll be in for a couple of these.