Dapol announce 8 new 'O' gauge wagons at Guildex

[cromptonnut]

Do you think the St Ivel tanks will ever appear?  I have 5 on pre-order for a layout I want to build.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Thanks for the clarification, I pointed out the lamp bracket and instanter thing, so we agree there.  I was also thinking that the bauxite looks a tad light but as I intend to weather mine, it doesn't matter to me. So, yes, somewhat shortchanged but I'd be more inclined to give the wagons an A nevertheless.  Another point is that the wagons have a compensating beam on one side.

 

I've only been doing 7mm for a few months so I'm perhaps not as sensitive as you are.

 

As for the Bachmann models, as an LMS modeller in 4mm I felt VERY shortchanged that the vans released as LMS (and by Dapol as well - they've just released a whole raft of these) are in fact BR vans and impossible to correct.

 

Cheers

 

John

Hi John, thanks.

 

Welcome to 7mm-there's no going back Ha Ha!

 

Im not really sensitive to such per se, just noted that back in, IIRC, 2012, Bachmann were doing good things with BR 12T vans. There has been a 'tradition' that, putting aside cottage industry considerations, 7mm often costs more and gets less, in terms of certain kits and RTR. Thankfully this IS being turned around but its a little like turning around a super-tanker at times though.

 

I agree re weathering. I meant to mention that the Dapol Bauxite is very good for what it is and well applied, like yours, mine will be weathered too, so such negates any variances in livery vs era, build locations etc.

 

As Ive said here & eleswhere, they run superly well, which has the hallmarks of RWs input.

 

Interesting to hear about the 4mm LMS vans, just proves the point that the SMEs are still getting it wrong AND that not all that glitters is gold! LOL!

 

Kind regards,

 

CME

[brossard]

I think that if we want every I dotted and T crossed wrt the finer points of a vehicle, perhaps kits are the way, not RTR.  The current RTR from Dapol are roughly the same price as kits but save an enormous amount of time and effort.  If the modeller wants, he/she can add details ad infinitum (or maybe ad nauseum) and this goes for kits as well.  All I ask (and frequently didn't get in 4mm) is a model that is accurate in its' main dimensions and detail - I can sort the other things.

 

Dapols 1st generation wagons, of which I bought just one just to see, had very good bodies (as far as I can tell anyway) but are, IMO, pretty dire under the solebars.  I sorted that with some Bill Bedford kits.  I wouldn't buy any more.  I hope that the underframe tooling gets consigned to the skip and that future releases use the Lionheart.

 

John

Edited February 16, 2017 by brossard

[coachmann]

Personally, I consider ready-to-run fully painted wagons that cost the same or less than kits of parts represent a very good return on my money.    

[HeavyDuty]

I think that if we want every I dotted and T crossed wrt the finer points of a vehicle, perhaps kits are the way, not RTR.  The current RTR from Dapol are roughly the same price as kits but save an enormous amount of time and effort.  If the modeller wants, he/she can add details ad infinitum (or maybe ad nauseum) and this goes for kits as well.  All I ask (and frequently didn't get in 4mm) is a model that is accurate in its' main dimensions and detail - I can sort the other things.

 

Dapols 1st generation wagons, of which I bought just one just to see, had very good bodies (as far as I can tell anyway) but are, IMO, pretty dire under the solebars.  I sorted that with some Bill Bedford kits.  I wouldn't buy any more.  I hope that the underframe tooling gets consigned to the skip and that future releases use the Lionheart.

 

John

John, I for one would find a step-by-step guide of what you did to upgrade your wagon with Bill Bedford components to be extremely useful!

[brossard]

John, I for one would find a step-by-step guide of what you did to upgrade your wagon with Bill Bedford components to be extremely useful!

 

How about this Ken:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/116861-Dapol-rtr-po-wagon-upgrade/

 

A considerable increase to the cost for the kits.  A heck of a lot of bother too.

 

John

[HeavyDuty]

How about this Ken:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/116861-Dapol-rtr-po-wagon-upgrade/

 

A considerable increase to the cost for the kits.  A heck of a lot of bother too.

 

John

Very nice, John - thank you for linking your thread! The new vans seem to be better in that regard than the first wagons, but I'm sure there is still much that can be improved if desired.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

I think that if we want every I dotted and T crossed wrt the finer points of a vehicle, perhaps kits are the way, not RTR.  The current RTR from Dapol are roughly the same price as kits but save an enormous amount of time and effort.  If the modeller wants, he/she can add details ad infinitum (or maybe ad nauseum) and this goes for kits as well.  All I ask (and frequently didn't get in 4mm) is a model that is accurate in its' main dimensions and detail - I can sort the other things.

 

Dapols 1st generation wagons, of which I bought just one just to see, had very good bodies (as far as I can tell anyway) but are, IMO, pretty dire under the solebars.  I sorted that with some Bill Bedford kits.  I wouldn't buy any more.  I hope that the underframe tooling gets consigned to the skip and that future releases use the Lionheart.

 

John

John,

 

I think that you may have misunderstood me?

 

I am not referring to super-detailing or museum quality models (crossing 'T's' and dotting 'I's') merely some extra finesse and getting the basics right in terms of what is expected from a modern RTR model - also whilst I like supporting the cottage industry suppliers some on a budget may expect RTR to have certain prototype features included ie Instanters and Lamp/Lantern Irons/Brackets. True to say this is NOT end of the world stuff, yet I, for one, am bemused by 'an accurate scale model' that has bits missing. But HEY! Its still a B+ model!

 

I agree re the POWs- some were a pure act of fiction both top and bottom - btw there are some accuracy issues on the chassis of certain LH wagons too! I wont ruin it for you, you can have fun looking and if you or I cant see it, then who cares!?

 

I am still waiting to hear how to resolve the issues of bendy sides too.....

 

Personally, I consider ready-to-run fully painted wagons that cost the same or less than kits of parts represent a very good return on my money.    

Agreed (with the aforementioned caveats)!

 

As I say a B+ model - or at least the ones I have are.

 

With RWs input we can look forward to A or A* at the same prices in the future.

 

ATVB

 

CME

[brossard]

A lot of subjectivity as regards the level of detail that's acceptable.  As I say I don't sweat the small things, but yes lamp brackets and instanter links would have made things a lot easier.  If you've built a lot of kits, you are likely to have these in the spares box.  In fact if the manufacturers were to make perfect RTR models, where's the fun in that?   So, I agree with Larry, great value in these RTR offerings and will stick to my grade of A.  I would definitely buy more of these.

 

As for mistakes on the Lionhearts, don't tell me, if they are obvious, I expect I'll find them.

 

Great discussion and here's hoping that Dapol will continue to improve.

 

Speaking of museum quality, dotted Is and Ts, my next kit foray will be some MMP minerals.

 

John

Edited February 16, 2017 by brossard

[CME and Bottlewasher]

A lot of subjectivity as regards the level of detail that's acceptable.  As I say I don't sweat the small things, but yes lamp brackets and instanter links would have made things a lot easier.  If you've built a lot of kits, you are likely to have these in the spares box.  In fact if the manufacturers were to make perfect RTR models, where's the fun in that?   So, I agree with Larry, great value in these RTR offerings and will stick to my grade of A.  I would definitely buy more of these.

 

As for mistakes on the Lionhearts, don't tell me, if they are obvious, I expect I'll find them.

 

Great discussion and here's hoping that Dapol will continue to improve.

 

Speaking of museum quality, dotted Is and Ts, my next kit foray will be some MMP minerals.

 

John

Ah, but John, no matter how many LWB fittings one has in the proverbial 'spare-parts bin', more often than not, they aint the right ones!    

 

A Clue re LH RTR....Vac cylinders  

 

MMP minerals, very nice! The issue is with all of those laminations, as Im 50 something, I might not be here long enough to complete such a task - I shall stick with LH and PSD versions  

 

As I say the Dapol stuff is B+, yet it would be nice, to, just for once, have a RTR model, out of China, that is complete, isn't broken/damaged/bits falling off, to be able to chuck a couple of semi-auto couplings on and a bit of weathering and actually play trains - I live in hope!

 

ATVB

 

CME

[brossard]

True enough about spares sometimes.  However I find most of the time I have something that I can bodge into submission.  If not, I'm not averse to making something, I've got a big box full of brass offcuts.  Eg, I had some spare lamp brackets from a Slaters kit.  Both Slaters and Parkside have standard frets that often contain bits that aren't relevant to the kit you are building.

 

Vac cylinders?  I only have 2 LH models and they are unfitted.

 

The vac cylinders on the Dapol fitted vehicles don't look out of place to me.

 

You make a good point about age, I just turned 60.  You realise, often with a jolt, that your modelling days are not infinite and that you'd better get a move on.  One reason I made the move to 7mm, no do overs in life.

 

True about bits falling off, usually easy enough to fix, but I hate finding something loose halfway through weathering.

 

John

[coachmann]

While concentrating on building for others, I did not examine the Dapol 0 gauge goods vans until tonight. The picture below shows one straight out of the box before couplings were fitted. During handling, it became obvious the wheels on one side rock on a compensating bar. Buffers are sprung as are couplings....

 

 

I need a couple of GWR and LMS box vans from Parkside and a Palbrick wagon, but the only Palbrick I could find may not be available for some time. Bricks will have to be carried in another type of wagon.

Edited February 17, 2017 by coachmann

[HeavyDuty]

A question regarding lamp irons on wagons - I have to admit this is a detail I've never noticed before. Would I be correct in assuming they would only be applied to fitted stock?

[brossard]

One other thing I noticed about the fitted vehicles (of which I have a plywood sided example, as shown, and open), is that there is no buffer beam mounted socket to connect the hose to when not in use.  I may just replace the vac hoses with flexy ones from Slaters which include the socket.

 

My understanding is that a lamp iron would be installed on fitted stock because these could be at the end of a train.  Happy to be proven wrong on this.

 

John

[coachmann]

The requirement for fully fitted freight trains to end with a guard's van was lifted in 1968. No doubt this is when fitted good vans and other vehicles were given lamp brackets? If so, it pretty well post-dates the steam-era.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

A question regarding lamp irons on wagons - I have to admit this is a detail I've never noticed before. Would I be correct in assuming they would only be applied to fitted stock?

Yes, in terms of these Dapol vehicles, especially those of the late 1960s-ie for block trains et al. not requiring the use of a Brake-Van

True enough about spares sometimes. However I find most of the time I have something that I can bodge into submission. If not, I'm not averse to making something, I've got a big box full of brass offcuts. Eg, I had some spare lamp brackets from a Slaters kit. Both Slaters and Parkside have standard frets that often contain bits that aren't relevant to the kit you are building.

 

Vac cylinders? I only have 2 LH models and they are unfitted.

 

The vac cylinders on the Dapol fitted vehicles don't look out of place to me.

 

You make a good point about age, I just turned 60. You realise, often with a jolt, that your modelling days are not infinite and that you'd better get a move on. One reason I made the move to 7mm, no do overs in life.

 

True about bits falling off, usually easy enough to fix, but I hate finding something loose halfway through weathering.

 

John

The Vac Cyls are okay on the Dapol vehicles-its just one vehicle that LH did Ha Ha! Very often I knock stuff up from Plastikard or bits of wire too. The LWB & brass etch is in the 'spares bin' for a reason, it wasnt needed on the era of model/kit I was building in the first place, thus is also little use for anything else! Ha Ha!! Yes its bl$%dy annoying when bits fall off amid painting/weathering. The main reason for using RTR is, time, effort and endeavouring to get the layout finished in my life-time LOL!.

One other thing I noticed about the fitted vehicles (of which I have a plywood sided example, as shown, and open), is that there is no buffer beam mounted socket to connect the hose to when not in use. I may just replace the vac hoses with flexy ones from Slaters which include the socket.

 

My understanding is that a lamp iron would be installed on fitted stock because these could be at the end of a train. Happy to be proven wrong on this.

 

John

Agreed re. Lamp Irons. Re. the drop-down Vac hoses, the issue is John, that most photos of the prototype are from side on so end details are often not shown or are in shadow, so its hard to ascertain what is fitted and what isnt. When time permits I shall have to dig out the reference books. I note MMPs instructions for Vac hoses and those from CPL always imply the use of the drop-down bar and socket type attachment-and are supplied accordingly with their respective Vac hoses

The requirement for fully fitted freight trains to end with a guard's van was lifted in 1968. No doubt this is when fitted good vans and other vehicles were given lamp brackets? If so, it pretty well post-dates the steam-era.

I have a feeling that these vehicles were fitted with such from new-but you raise a very good point as they could easily have been retro fitted (to some or all).....as I said I shall have to go back to the books.

 

Interesting & thought provoking comments fellas!

 

ATVB

 

CME

Edited February 18, 2017 by CME and Bottlewasher

[brossard]

You are quite right about buffer beam details, they are usually hidden from sight because of the angle of the photo.  Slaters appear to have got it right.  I like the spring used for a vac hose.  I've been attaching it to the socket with blacktack.  I did try using those teeny magnets but it was quite a faff.

 

Another bugbear of mine and I've been on my soapbox about this, is that most kit manufacturers that I'm aware of (Parkside, Slaters and even Connaisseur) ignore safety loops for 8 show clasp brake vehicles.  It's only a bit of wire and I've been fitting them myself but it would be nice to at least some clue as to what they look like.  I was actually given a very good picture of a bare LNER underframe so I'm much wiser, but not all wagons were the same.

 

Cheers

 

John

[jjnewitt]

A question regarding lamp irons on wagons - I have to admit this is a detail I've never noticed before. Would I be correct in assuming they would only be applied to fitted stock?

Lamp irons would have been required on all vehicles that were XP rated. Basically in BR days this meant vacuum braked wagons that were a minimum of 17'6" long with a minimum wheelbase of 10'. Such wagons could be used as tail traffic and so would need to have been able to display a lamp. Post 1968 and the end of the need to have a brake van at the ends of fully fitted trains all vacuum braked wagons would have needed to have a lamp iron fitted though whether they all got them is another matter

 

The a Dapol 5 planks look nice but I don't think they've quite got the planking right. When they were new the top plank was the same width as the bottom plank and noticeably wider than the middle three. Given that there are published drawings of the LMS version of this wagon (Wild Swan) and no end of references it's a shame.

 

Justin

[coachmann]

Lamp irons would have been required on all vehicles that were XP rated. Basically in BR days this meant vacuum braked wagons that were a minimum of 17'6" long with a minimum wheelbase of 10'. Such wagons could be used as tail traffic and so would need to have been able to display a lamp. 

Good point Justin, I had forgotten about tail traffic. I wonder if things changed in the early 1960's, as I have noticed in railway videos that the addition of a van to a passenger consist always seemed to be behind the engine. This of course could have been purely for operational convenience, for instance, if it was be dropped off into a private siding.

Edited February 18, 2017 by coachmann

[HeavyDuty]

Thank you all for your comments about lamp brackets - I will look for photos so I can add them to my vans. I'm sure I can find an appropriate detail part or bend them out of brass strip stock if I can find dimensions.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

You are quite right about buffer beam details, they are usually hidden from sight because of the angle of the photo. Slaters appear to have got it right. I like the spring used for a vac hose. I've been attaching it to the socket with blacktack. I did try using those teeny magnets but it was quite a faff.

 

Another bugbear of mine and I've been on my soapbox about this, is that most kit manufacturers that I'm aware of (Parkside, Slaters and even Connaisseur) ignore safety loops for 8 show clasp brake vehicles. It's only a bit of wire and I've been fitting them myself but it would be nice to at least some clue as to what they look like. I was actually given a very good picture of a bare LNER underframe so I'm much wiser, but not all wagons were the same.

 

Cheers

 

John

Hi John, the springs are okay until the blackening and/or paint falls off. On the Slaters type, the two fittings usually fit well together-I sometimes use tackywax. The safety bars? I agree, I use 0.7 NS wire, the GWR/WR used a square section on Toads et al-which offers another challenge. On the Slaters vans Ive built, the smaller safety check straps are often impossible to remove from the sprue-w/o damage-I either use Bill Bedford replacements or fettled paperclips

Good point Justin, I had forgotten about tail traffic. I wonder if things changed in the early 1960's, as I have noticed in railway videos that the addition of a van to a passenger consist always seemed to be behind the engine. This of course could have been purely for operational convenience, for instance, if it was be dropped off into a private siding.

I nearly made the same point last night-but this mobile device and browsers defeated me.

 

If Im reading you fellas right,w/o wishing to teach anyone's granny to suck eggs Ha Ha!, wherever possible in a train with both fitted and unfitted stock, fitted stock would be, when possible, behind the engine, so as to apply at least some vacuum braking for the train. Although why such would be in front of vac fitted coaches seems a bit baffling as the coaches should be vacuum braked and vans et al would be easier to drop off the back??

 

As mentiond XP stock would be fitted with Lamp Brackets as each item of stock could be - almost self contained as far as braking is concerned - at the back of a train at any time. The eg. you mention could have something to do with 'through vacuum pipes/braking' too?

 

Circling back a little, according to Don Rowland's "British Railways Wagons-the first half million" (I love that title), when looking at the 1/208 & 1/212 (Margarine branded 12T Ventilated Goods Van) dia 12T vans, 1964 and earlier, 1954 respectively (although the former is fitted with clasp brakes and an experimental auto-uncoupler), lamp/lantern brackets/irons can clearly be seen in place (photographic evidence).On nearly all of the vans Instanters and Vac hose/pipe support brackets abound!AFAICT the first 1/208s were built in 1951 and the last in 1958, nearly all at Wolverton. So, if similar vehicles were fitted with Lamp Brackets in 1954, it appears that they all were-from new.

 

Here's a question for you all, fitted 16T Minerals, were they equipped with Lamp Irons/Lantern Brackets??

 

ATVB

 

CME

Edited February 18, 2017 by CME and Bottlewasher

[brossard]

Hi CME.  I'm relieved to hear that you fit safety loops/bars.  I still haven't found an explanation as to why these are ignored, not just left out, by so many manufacturers.  As to safety loops on 4 shoe brakes, also agree that the plastic loops supplied by Slaters are impossible.  This is where scrap brass strip comes in.

 

I tried to blacken the vac pipe springs but the stuff I was using (Carrs) wouldn't touch them.  I assumed that they were coated.  Painting isn't an option either.  I will just leave them and rely on weathering.

 

Relieved to hear that lamp brackets on fitted vehicles were there from new, ie the 1950s.

 

I will pass on the mineral question but stay tuned for the riveting answer.

 

John

[coachmann]

If Im reading you fellas right,w/o wishing to teach anyone's granny to suck eggs Ha Ha!, wherever possible in a train with both fitted and unfitted stock, fitted stock would be, when possible, behind the engine, so as to apply at least some vacuum braking for the train. Although why such would be in front of vac fitted coaches seems a bit baffling as the coaches should be vacuum braked and vans et al would be easier to drop off the back??

So the poor passenger have to be shunted back and forth in and out of the station to allow a van at the back to be put in a siding?  Not necessary. Take milk tanks as an example; When they are behind the loco, they are simply detached, drawn forward by the loco and then propelled then into a private or whatever siding. With the loco re-attached, the train carries on along its journey.  I've seen it done.

Edited February 18, 2017 by coachmann

[CME and Bottlewasher]

So the poor passenger have to be shunted back and forth in and out of the station to allow a van at the back to be put in a siding? Not necessary. Take milk tanks as an example; When they are behind the loco, they are simply detached, drawn forward by the loco and then propelled then into a private or whatever siding. With the loco re-attached, the train carries on along its journey. I've seen it done.

I AGREE. But it does depend on the locale too-IIRC if any such shunting is reqd then in certain circumstances the passengers get out (according to Essery et al). A bit off topic and too complex for words/Posting here though me thinks.

 

It was hard to read - and reply to - your Post as Im having to use a mobile, in addition, Im having to use Chrome instead of Firefox et al and its rather like peering through a letter box-even worse when replying (and lower spectrum dyslexic).

 

So dont think too harshly of me.

 

ATB

 

CME

Edited February 18, 2017 by CME and Bottlewasher

[jjnewitt]

If Im reading you fellas right,w/o wishing to teach anyone's granny to suck eggs Ha Ha!, wherever possible in a train with both fitted and unfitted stock, fitted stock would be, when possible, behind the engine, so as to apply at least some vacuum braking for the train. 

Not necesarily. It would depend entirely on the class the train it was running as. Something like a class 8 or 9 goods would be unfitted and any vacuum braked stock in the train would be marshalled according to destination. Even on something like a class 5 freight once you got past the min fitted head both vacuum braked and unfitted wagons could be found mixed together.

 

Circling back a little, according to Don Rowland's "British Railways Wagons-the first half million" (I love that title), when looking at the 1/208 & 1/212 (Margarine branded 12T Ventilated Goods Van) dia 12T vans, 1964 and earlier, 1954 respectively (although the former is fitted with clasp brakes and an experimental auto-uncoupler), lamp/lantern brackets/irons can clearly be seen in place (photographic evidence).On nearly all of the vans Instanters and Vac hose/pipe support brackets abound!AFAICT the first 1/208s were built in 1951 and the last in 1958, nearly all at Wolverton. So, if similar vehicles were fitted with Lamp Brackets in 1954, it appears that they all were-from new.

All the BR standard vans and variations of would have had lamp irons from new. 

 

Here's a question for you all, fitted 16T Minerals, were they equipped with Lamp Irons/Lantern Brackets??

 

Not before 1968, they weren't XP rated (9' wheelbase and 16'6" long). Yes post 1968.

 

Relieved to hear that lamp brackets on fitted vehicles were there from new, ie the 1950s.

Vacuum braked stock could have lamp irons from new in grouping era as well. A large amount of GWR vacuum braked vans were fitted with lamp irons for example, though a quick glance through one of Russell's wagon boks would suggest not all. The GWR had its own XP rating and I don't think it was quite as all encompassing as the BR one. It's worth noting that not all vacuum braked stock was XP rated and so just because something was fitted it doesn't mean it would have had lamp irons from new. 

 

Passenger trains were of course not the only place where XP stock could be found behind the brake van. Vanfits in parcels trains would be a very obvious place.

 

Justin