Dapol Streamlined Railcar

[County of Yorkshire]

EDIT: Just noticed CoY's photos and, so long as he hasn't tweaked them, the lighting looks uniquely good so switching it off shouldn't be necessary.

I can confirm that I have done nothing to the photos. I operate DC and so I must say that the light's brightness increases as the speed does. Even so, even at top speed on my rolling road, the lights do not appear garish. For reference; my pictures were taken with the railcar at around 3/4 speed, which I'd estimate to be a scale 40/50 mph.

 

Also wanted to comment on the weight - given the amout of internal open space, this thing is very heavy and gives it a quality feeling when in the hand (which makes the interior finish even more galling). In fact it's so heavy it could probably pull the Cornish Riveria Express in an emergency!

 

CoY

[Chamby]

As with most lighting on a plastic glazed model, there is a faint afterglow around the windows etc., and a bit leaks through the paint. but it is slight, and better than most models.

One major modification, a new flywheel on the back end of the motor, as large as possible to give coasting capacity. With no DCC there is a lot of spare space, and if converted the DCC could live in the roof space above the lighting.

If you’re converting to DCC, couldn’t you just programme in the inertia rather than go to all the trouble of installing a large flywheel?

[bertiedog]

 I doubt the flywheel will cost anything much, and is 100% reliable and not a decidedly iffy product like DCC, which by the way I have very long experience with from zero one onwards, including a Merg unit and Lenz, and have wasted a small fortune on, along with time I could have spent on other things........I still run DCC with 0n3o locos, they often came S/h and where chipped.

There is plenty of space for both in the railcar. I have no desire to run more than one item at a time on a model railway, DCC's main advantage.It cannot cure bad running locos, make them smoother, or make the tea.They make sounds, but come on Mr Edisons recordings sound better than the Mickey Mouse sounds offered.

I have never worked out the cost of making a flywheel, ten minutes on the lathe with about 40 pence worth of scrap brass, against several hundred for DCC......Hmmm, what a choice to make!

[Godfrey Glyn]

I would agree with Dunsignalling that the lighting is uniquely good, when I ran mine in daylight in a south facing room I was hardly aware of it. It only becomes obvious in low light and even then not like the Blackpool illuminations level of lighting that seems to grace many recent 'lit' 4mm models.

 

I would be interested to know if the driving cab of the Nos 8-17 batch, modelled by Dapol cars had the same arrangement as those in No 4. Looking through the pictures in Colin Judge's book the curtains, if fitted at all, were very small.

 

Very happy with mine and looking forward to detailing and populating the inside, we need Alan at ModelU to do some seated passengers!

 

all the best

 

Godfrey

[swiftbeam]

 

When I get around to it, I'll be fitting a smaller motor lowered deeper into the chassis, fitting a flywheel (why not if your at the machine anyway) and remodelling the interior.

 

I have already very successfully carried out this type of work on a Hornby 61xx (x Airfix) that wasn't running as well as it could. I actually fitted 60:1 gears into the 61xx, but the Dapol doesn't need better gearing, so thats saved me that agro.

 

It took me an afternoon of turning and milling to convert the 61xx, it was then converted to DCC. That model now holds it's own against any modern loco, the motor I used was a Mashima 1626. I may just double check the Dapol and buy another Mashima while I can in readiness.

 

I'll keep you posted when I do it :-)

 

P.S, It maybe possible to use the standard motor ??? I'll check that and report back :-)

Edited November 1, 2017 by swiftbeam

[Oldddudders]

buy another Mashima while I can in readiness.

 

 

 

I believe they may be a rare item now?

[swiftbeam]

I believe they may be a rare item now?

 

You can still buy them if you know where to look :-)

[Steven B]

I have never worked out the cost of making a flywheel, ten minutes on the lathe with about 40 pence worth of scrap brass, against several hundred for DCC......Hmmm, what a choice to make!

 

Erm, a lump of brass acting as a fly-wheel is not the same as inertia on a DCC decoder.

 

The flywheel acts to keep the motor turning when the power is interupted, either because the brushes moving between different poles on the commutator, or because of breaks in supply (e.g. traversing insulfrog pointwork). DCC controlled models benefit from having a flywheel fitted.

 

Inertia on the DCC decoder limits the rate at which speed can be changed - it simulates the physical bulk of a locomotive & train meaning you don't go from 0-125mph in 2 seconds. A Keep alive capacitor can be fitted to DCC models allowing them to keep moving during small breaks in power supply.

 

Steven B.

[bertiedog]

I'll stick with the correctly engineered proven operation of a flywheel. rather than line the pockets of some half baked DCC system from abroad curing a completely non existent problem. The railcar works fine, but any increase in mass of the flywheel will get better results.

I have no problem to cure, it is just making a mechanical system better to add a larger flywheel. I have Hobby town mechanisms that contain 1/2 lb of flywheel and coast with the power off. This sound engineering, sadly is not appreciated by modern designers.

 

DCC will not cure problems., or improve performance when used with decent locos.It is case of the Emperors New Clothes if users think it does, they really think it will, as the have just parted with £500 plus and have to convince themselves it was worth it.

 

To each their own, if you have the money then spend it on DCC, but the same amounts spent on decent moors and gears would reap far more benefits to the user.. also stay alive circuits work perfectly on DC......

Edited November 1, 2017 by bertiedog

[bertiedog]

I may fit a new floor after altering the motor to a double shafted Maxon coreless motor, which just fits at the right level with two flywheels to give mass and inertia to the motor. It is also ballraced and silent.

In the meantime the parts existing will be used with the new cab details. There will be another one bought later on for more radical alterations,

Stephen

[swiftbeam]

I may fit a new floor after altering the motor to a double shafted Maxon coreless motor, which just fits at the right level with two flywheels to give mass and inertia to the motor. It is also ballraced and silent.

In the meantime the parts existing will be used with the new cab details. There will be another one bought later on for more radical alterations,

Stephen

 

Where would we go for the best selection of  Maxon careless motoring 00 models?

[Legend]

Having looked at the interior, there are two lumps, one covers the motor, one covers the UJ over the driving bogie. The UJ bulge is behind the doors, so almost irrelevant.

 

The motor could have been smaller and hidden within the chassis. The interior could have been a basic plate in one colour, and the seats and bulkheads could have been cast as separate parts. These parts could then have been printed and fitted. This would have give the interior a VERY 3D look and lift the model way above the rest for very little extra work. Those not involved with manufacturing will say this would bring problems etc etc, but trust me, it could have been done easily!

 

If you look at the Hornby Merchant navy, GWR 28xx etc, they have a VAST number of parts hidden and fitted everywhere. All these parts needed designing, tooling, casting, painting and fitting. The Dapol Railcar does not have anywhere near the number of parts the above models listed have, not to mention they are steam locos with a more complicated drive system with way more parts! These models sell for roughly the same price as the Railcar.

 

As for cost, yes it would add a manufacturing cost, but it would have added VALUE notoriety! It would also be a huge selling point. I for one would have paid extra for such a model with this extra level of detail. Not even having driving controls is very odd considering the company has gone to great lengths in other models they make.

 

I believe they could have retailed this Railcar for £160+ if the inside was as good as the outside.

 

Please don't misunderstand me, this IS a nice model, it is painted and printed well, but it could have been so much more, and they could have charged more. This is a stand alone vehicle, it does not need to pull anything, it is for the most part a one off purchase. I believe people would pay a little bit more for a killer one off model.

 

its an interesting view. I've also seen someone earlier in the thread saying they'd pay an extra £50 for inside detailing.  Seems to me Dapol can't win.  I 'd be happy with it as it is and the lower price. The basic shape, outside decoration and running seem spot on . I usually hate hearing , just go and do a bit of modelling, isn't that what its all about as I always think its a bit high handed and patronising. However in this case I thinks its true . Lots of RTR guys don't like altering, repainting the outside of the unit because they know they can never achieve the same standard of finish, but the interior is quite a different matter. There will be those quite happy with the model as it is, and others who want a really detailed interior . Well it seems to me Dapol have accommodated both and allowed you to customise the interior of the model.  If they'd done it the other way around and brought it in fully detailed @£180, many wouldn't have bought it at all.

 

People know I'm always looking for a bargain and hate when model railway companies pass on increases on some spurious reasoning , but @£123 I think this compares reasonably with other models being released eg H £119, Duchess £169, 87 £149

[ROSSPOP]

I'll stick with the correctly engineered proven operation of a flywheel. rather than line the pockets of some half baked DCC system from abroad curing a completely non existent problem. The railcar works fine, but any increase in mass of the flywheel will get better results.

I have no problem to cure, it is just making a mechanical system better to add a larger flywheel. I have Hobby town mechanisms that contain 1/2 lb of flywheel and coast with the power off. This sound engineering, sadly is not appreciated by modern designers.

 

DCC will not cure problems., or improve performance when used with decent locos.It is case of the Emperors New Clothes if users think it does, they really think it will, as the have just parted with £500 plus and have to convince themselves it was worth it.

 

To each their own, if you have the money then spend it on DCC, but the same amounts spent on decent moors and gears would reap far more benefits to the user.. also stay alive circuits work perfectly on DC......

 

Now come on Bertie dog..........

 

flywheels fitted to modern motors is sooooo 1960`s.   The only usefull thing about a flywheel is to help maintain your lathe skills.....

 

They have been outmoded by the advent of decent  modern motors  matched to decent controllers  since the 1970`s........

 

I`m no longer a 4mm modeller but if I was I would certainly buy the Dapol AEC Railcar and put some midnight oil into upgrading the interior.

 

But as for chewing up a perfectly adequate chassis ( according to other forums comments about performance) it aint  required if you have a decent controller and are not still using an H&M Clipper.

 

non of the following is 4mmm.......

 

..... but even with a basic chassis plus quality motor ( Sagami)........

 

 

If you have a quality  anologue controller.........

 

 

you don`t need a  flywheel..............

[bertiedog]

Where would we go for the best selection of  Maxon careless motoring 00 models?

Ebay from £5 upwards for Swiss precision motors

[The Johnster]

If you have a decent analogue controller, and a model with a good low speed performance and a good, smooth, efficient drive train, a flywheel is still, IMHO, a desirable thing to have if there are any questions over the quality of track laying and pickup, which there almost always are!  This is also true of DCC.  The downside is that the very conditions under which the loco needs flywheel assistance, when it is running slowly over questionable track or insulfrog points or with dirty pickups, are the very conditions in which the flywheel is moving slowly and is of least effect.

[swiftbeam]

its an interesting view. I've also seen someone earlier in the thread saying they'd pay an extra £50 for inside detailing.  Seems to me Dapol can't win.  I 'd be happy with it as it is and the lower price. The basic shape, outside decoration and running seem spot on . I usually hate hearing , just go and do a bit of modelling, isn't that what its all about as I always think its a bit high handed and patronising. However in this case I thinks its true . Lots of RTR guys don't like altering, repainting the outside of the unit because they know they can never achieve the same standard of finish, but the interior is quite a different matter. There will be those quite happy with the model as it is, and others who want a really detailed interior . Well it seems to me Dapol have accommodated both and allowed you to customise the interior of the model.  If they'd done it the other way around and brought it in fully detailed @£180, many wouldn't have bought it at all.

 

People know I'm always looking for a bargain and hate when model railway companies pass on increases on some spurious reasoning , but @£123 I think this compares reasonably with other models being released eg H £119, Duchess £169, 87 £149

 

 

If you look back through the thread, you will find it was me that said I'd pay £50 extra, and I would, all day long.

 

I personally think £125 is a good price for what you get, but £185 for the same model with an awesomely detailed inside would be better for me. I am a very busy guy and £50 is a small price for me to pay for great detail. After all, think about it, what is £50, about 3 hours labour for most of us, it's nothing. It will take me a great deal longer than 3 hours to fit this model out with the insides it deserves!

 

You'll never make everybody happy, but detail is what people these days like, it sells models, but it needs to be paid for. If you like stuff on the cheap, there is literally tones of 1980's Hornby out there to buy, fill your boots, you'll get unto 10 locos for £100!

 

As for me, I like quality and I'm happy to pay for it. I'd rather be spending my time making my layout look the best it can rather than finishing expensive RTR models as they should be at these price points.

 

Just my opinion.

[Miss Prism]

The downside is that the very conditions under which the loco needs flywheel assistance, when it is running slowly over questionable track or insulfrog points or with dirty pickups, are the very conditions in which the flywheel is moving slowly and is of least effect.

 

True, but it begs the question as to how long the interruption to the motor supply might be, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that a flywheel in itself is a cure for dodgy/plastic track, dodgy pickups, bad suspension etc. The upside of a flywheel (and I note Dapol has fitted one) is that it slugs the acceleration and deceleration of the motor shaft.

[Legend]

If you look back through the thread, you will find it was me that said I'd pay £50 extra, and I would, all day long.

 

I personally think £125 is a good price for what you get, but £185 for the same model with an awesomely detailed inside would be better for me. I am a very busy guy and £50 is a small price for me to pay for great detail. After all, think about it, what is £50, about 3 hours labour for most of us, it's nothing. It will take me a great deal longer than 3 hours to fit this model out with the insides it deserves!

 

You'll never make everybody happy, but detail is what people these days like, it sells models, but it needs to be paid for. If you like stuff on the cheap, there is literally tones of 1980's Hornby out there to buy, fill your boots, you'll get unto 10 locos for £100!

 

As for me, I like quality and I'm happy to pay for it. I'd rather be spending my time making my layout look the best it can rather than finishing expensive RTR models as they should be at these price points.

 

Just my opinion.

Yes and everbodys entitled to their opinion. I don’t see why I should be consigned to 1980s Hornby stuff. Quite happy to pay a reasonable price for reasonable detail. However this insistence on nth degree of detail and full DCC bells and whistles is driving costs up and pricing folk out of the hobby. To me Dapol have got this about right.

[melmerby]

Just got my No.12 and must say I think it looks superb.

The lack of interior detail and motor hump when viewed horizontally are not too obvious, but a tweak of an upgrade and some passengers would help.

 

Haven't tried it yet but looking forward to getting it running.

A whole lot better finished than my Lima No.22 (modded with Black Beetle and all wheel pickup, plus interior lights.)

 

Keith

[swiftbeam]

As you say, Dapol have got the price about right, I agree.

I am just saying, I'd pay more for more internal detail.

It would add more manufacturing cost and that's why I say I'd pay unto £185 RRP.

That's all I'm saying.

[Oldddudders]

 

DCC will not cure problems., or improve performance when used with decent locos.It is case of the Emperors New Clothes if users think it does, they really think it will, as the have just parted with £500 plus and have to convince themselves it was worth it.

 

To each their own, if you have the money then spend it on DCC, but the same amounts spent on decent moors and gears would reap far more benefits to the user.. also stay alive circuits work perfectly on DC......

 

Yawn.

[Legend]

As you say, Dapol have got the price about right, I agree.

I am just saying, I'd pay more for more internal detail.

It would add more manufacturing cost and that's why I say I'd pay unto £185 RRP.

That's all I'm saying.

Yes and it’s a fair point. Maybe they could introduce a “blue riband” version for those that want superior internal detail.

[peteskitchen]

Not sure that is right considering other models and scales. a lower mech is very doable in 00.

 I would have thought it was just a case of different numbers of teeth on a gearset. 20:1 and 40:1 for example can easily be done with the same number of gears, and wouldn't cost any difference at all.

[MGR Hooper!]

For what it is, I quite like the model.

 

Detail wise it seems lower than all the other detailed models around including Dapol's Class 122, but is the prototype like that? If you factor in the lack of cab detail and the basic interior I'd place this model in a "mid-range".

Cost wise I think it could've been cheaper, judging from what you see, it surely seems that it could've been about 20-30 quid cheaper.

 

However I personally do wish some model were released with this level of detail more often. Almost like Hornby's "design-clever".

 

Still quite a good model, I'll say 8/10 with the biggest drawback being the cost of it.

[melmerby]

 I would have thought it was just a case of different numbers of teeth on a gearset. 20:1 and 40:1 for example can easily be done with the same number of gears, and wouldn't cost any difference at all.

Like with the old Triang XO4 where the brass worm was a 2 start with a 40 tooth brass gear, it is 20:1

Replace it with same size single start worm and a 40 tooth wheel and it is 40:1

Due to designed in tolerance you could just replace the worm to get 40:1 (I did on more than one loco), not ideal but it worked.

 

Keith