Great Western Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Dapol have announced that their new Pillbox brake vans are en route to shops now. Look good, which ones would go with the BR Crest Terriers ? Also Im having problems with retailers websites and their catalogue numbers and descriptions not matching the Dapol ones. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadnought05 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Impressive. Hattons just sent me an email to say they now have them in stock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbs Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Observations on the Dapol Models O Gauge SR Brake Van 1 The buffers have no end ribs or pole stop, odd, as RW designed an acceptable version decades ago. 2 The sandbox lid slope is the much steeper, later, uneven 2+2 planked variation 3 The sandbox should have a channel bracket below the one shown at the bottom of each side 4 The sandbox lid is a different design. That shown is more like the later version 5 The numberplate is not raised and the printing is direct onto the solebar 6 *The SR Axlebox design is wrong as the Bolts are on the centreline and the top is not waisted in nor does it have the raised “SR” lettering as originally specified by Dave Jones. 7 There are four rivets missing on the solebars above each outer spring hanger. 8 The bolt spacing on the body planking is wrong, the variation in spacing is much too pronounced, It should probably be 3 ½” and 2 7/8” making the correct 6 3/8” plank width. It is more like 4 ” and 2 3/8” which gives a very different effect i.e. should be 1.2 to 1 not 1.7 to 1 error 40% !! If repeated on 2+2 plank vans will cause even more problems 9 Many EVEN plank brake vans seem to have had double diameter buffer bodies, 2+2 had the plain type 10 There are 9 leaves in the 25ton van spring NOT 5. The POWs had the correct number of 5 ! 11 The 4 large bolts on top of the end platform are a bit small and in the wrong position 12 Nuts on end corners of cabin are missing, there should be 9+ on each corner. 13 The riveting on the buffer beam is not as shown in photos. There are 6 more than the correct number 14 A few other “rivets” are misplaced, missing, added in error or the wrong size. 15 Ducket shape is wrong, the windows are nearly 1mm too high up, see 16. 16 Cover strip above the ducket is fully above plank gap, it should be bisected. 17 55995 & 55583 have completely the wrong solebar/axleguard design. Early RH ducket designs have LH ducket solebars with smaller “W” iron axleguards and different solebar riveting arrangement 18 The Ducket has no “screw heads” even though the Bachmann 4mm models does (But too large !) 19 The Sandbox has no “rivets” these are of similar size to the ducket ones. 20 The lower edge of the roof side should be body colour not roof colour. 21 The angle of the double ended tumbler on the brake cross shaft is about 45 degrees out of position. 22 *The Axlebox cover is the same for all models and should be quite different with only one bolt and 2 small rectangular blocks at the top on the BR variants when the SR version was replaced. 23 The model has not got the illuminated tail lamp mentioned in the original specification 24 The Buffers on the BR Vacuum piped version should have thick packers and the van should have screw couplings and vacuum pipes 25 The brakeshoe design is somewhat rudimentary 26 The BR versions do not have the reinforcing plates on the ends of the solebars or the headstocks 27 BR grey vans often had grey solebars & buffer beams, probably a continuation of SR practice when solebars were body colour. Although filthy, 56108 in Paul Bartlett’s photo looks grey to me 28 The buffer heads do not have the distinctive riveted collar behind the face 29 A very thick plate which, on my sample was not fixed and has dropped down, appears below the solebar and should be only a fraction of the thickness. 30 The axleguard shape is suspect, about halfway between the Plate type and W type in design. The above mentioned are those points which might help anyone who wishes to make an informed choice about whether to purchase these models. If anyone disagrees with the accuracy of the above please feel free to comment. It is entirely up to the individual to decide if the model is of a standard they feel acceptable and I simply offer these notes as a result of careful examination. It is very unlikely that many of these errors wil be mentioned in the model press reviews and the model will no doubt get glowing reports just as the Bachmann 4mm versions did. They are somewhat less accurate but still won the "Wagon of the Year" award. The accuracy of this model is no reflection on the efforts of Richard Webster as the design goes back virtually unaltered to early 2012 and although I was already aware of most of these problems he was only allowed to "Fix" the roof errors. Whether this was due to time or cost constraints I do not know. A few of the errors are due to CAD mirror imaging without checking, others simply to lack of checks against the numerous available sources of information. Correcting most errors would unfortunately require about half of the tooling to be remade but this may be what will happen if it is ever considered financially viable to do the 2+2 plank variants. as most of the body tooling will have to be new anyway and some of the errors will disappear automatically as they relate to the use of the 2+2 design on this version. Regards all adrtianbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Dapol have announced that their new Pillbox brake vans are en route to shops now. Look good, which ones would go with the BR Crest Terriers ? Also Im having problems with retailers websites and their catalogue numbers and descriptions not matching the Dapol ones. Regards Hi, The livery application looks very nice indeed, although a strange anomaly on the SR Brown and BR Bauxite versions in terms of the painting on the edge of the roof - not too hard to rectify though? A bit of a shame that the wonderfully clear works plate isnt on a raised 'plate/plinth'. I must say that the roof looks better on this production version - due to Richard's changes no doubt. I would like to see one up close before making any sort of purchase decision. Observations on the Dapol Models O Gauge SR Brake Van 1 The buffers have no end ribs or pole stop, odd, as RW designed an acceptable version decades ago. 2 The sandbox lid slope is the much steeper, later, uneven 2+2 planked variation 3 The sandbox should have a channel bracket below the one shown at the bottom of each side 4 The sandbox lid is a different design. That shown is more like the later version 5 The numberplate is not raised and the printing is direct onto the solebar 6 *The SR Axlebox design is wrong as the Bolts are on the centreline and the top is not waisted in nor does it have the raised “SR” lettering as originally specified. 7 There are four rivets missing on the solebars above each outer spring hanger. 8 The bolt spacing on the body planking is wrong, the variation in spacing is much too pronounced, It should probably be 3 ½” and 2 7/8” making the correct 6 3/8” plank width. It is more like 4 ” and 2 3/8” which gives a very different effect i.e. should be 1.2 to 1 not 1.7 to 1 error 40% !! If repeated on 2+2 plank vans will cause even more problems 9 Many EVEN plank brake vans seem to have had double diameter buffer bodies, 2+2 had the plain type 10 There are 9 leaves in the 25ton van spring NOT 5. The POWs had the correct number of 5 ! 11 The 4 large bolts on top of the end platform are a bit small and in the wrong position 12 Nuts on end corners of cabin are missing, there should be 9+ on each corner. 13 The riveting on the buffer beam is not as shown in photos. There are 6 more than the correct number 14 A few other “rivets” are misplaced, missing, added in error or the wrong size. 15 Ducket shape is wrong, the windows are nearly 1mm too high up, see 16. 16 Cover strip above the ducket is fully above plank gap, it should be bisected. 17 55995 & 55583 have completely the wrong solebar/axleguard design. Early RH ducket designs have LH ducket solebars with smaller “W” iron axleguards and different solebar riveting arrangement 18 The Ducket has no “screw heads” even though the Bachmann 4mm models does (But too large !) 19 The Sandbox has no “rivets” these are of similar size to the ducket ones. 20 The lower edge of the roof side should be body colour not roof colour. 21 The angle of the double ended tumbler on the brake cross shaft is about 45 degrees out of position. 22 *The Axlebox cover is the same for all models and should be quite different with only one bolt and 2 small rectangular blocks at the top on the BR variants when the SR version was replaced. 23 The model has not got the illuminated tail lamp mentioned in the original specification 24 The Buffers on the BR Vacuum piped version should have thick packers and the van should have screw couplings and vacuum pipes 25 The brakeshoe design is somewhat rudimentary 26 The BR versions do not have the reinforcing plates on the ends of the solebars or the headstocks 27 BR grey vans often had grey solebars & buffer beams, probably a continuation of SR practice when solebars were body colour. Although filthy, 56108 in Paul Bartlett’s photo looks grey to me 28 The buffer heads do not have the distinctive riveted collar behind the face 29 A very thick plate which, on my sample was not fixed and has dropped down, appears below the solebar and should be only a fraction of the thickness. 30 The axleguard shape is suspect, about halfway between the Plate type and W type in design. The above mentioned are those points which might help anyone who wishes to make an informed choice about whether to purchase these models. If anyone disagrees with the accuracy of the above please feel free to comment. It is entirely up to the individual to decide if the model is of a standard they feel acceptable and I simply offer these notes as a result of careful examination. It is very unlikely that many of these errors wil be mentioned in the model press reviews and the model will no doubt get glowing reports just as the Bachmann 4mm versions did. They are somewhat less accurate but still won the "Wagon of the Year" award. The accuracy of this model is no reflection on the efforts of Richard Webster as the design goes back virtually unaltered to early 1912 and although I was already aware of most of these problems he was only allowed to "Fix" the roof errors. Whether this was due to time or cost constraints I do not know. A few of the errors are due to CAD mirror imaging without checking, others simply to lack of checks against the numerous available sources of information. Correcting most errors would unfortunately require about half of the tooling to be remade but this may be what will happen if it is ever considered financially viable to do the 2+2 plank variants. as most of the body tooling will have to be new anyway and some of the errors will disappear automatically as they relate to the use of the 2+2 design on this version. Regards all adrtianbs Some interesting points there Adrian, useful info too. ATVB CME Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I thought that I might stick my head above the parapet and Post a couple of photos of my fettled Parkside Dundas Pillbox It is not perfect as I did compromise with some of my kit-bashing and super-detailing, yet it was an enjoyable build, even STOTB it makes into a very nice model, with only basic 'Airfix' kit type skills required to complete. Photographs are the copyright of the Author/Photographer 2012-2014 etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin1985 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Adrian's comments made me think of the old pet annoyance of many academics - the way that as the general public we tend to conflate precision and accuracy. We always talk about RTR models getting more and more accurate, and they undoubtedly are, but more than anything we're getting more precision. Adrian's comment on mirroring in CAD hits the nail on the head. But would it have been viable for Dapol to commission a project like this if the Chinese CAD operator, and indeed the person checking his output, had to be paid to generate that level of accuracy? Quite possibly not. And as we see from the praise lavished on less than perfect models, a lot of people are happy with precision that gives the appearance of accuracy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
90164 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 It's nice to know precisely how inaccurate it is! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I believe that there is a tendency, these days, for everyone to believe that because the CAD looks 'sexy' then all is well. Even when the model is produced from CAD drawings, even if the CAD drawings looked great, the model - in general terms - will still be inaccurate if the CAD drawing is wrong. The belt and braces approach is laser scanning plus CAD etc. As with any input to a computer or with a computer generated image/drawing, if inaccuracies are programmed in in the first place then the finished product will mirror and possibly amplify such problems. I think that CAD drawings can lull us into a false sense of security. With 'CAD jockeys' their wages - in the UK - have not really changed since eg the late 1980's in relative terms, so I am not sure if having decent CAD drawings would cost any more here than in China, 'if you buy cheap you pays twice' (especially true with expensive injection moulding tooling - eg if it has to be changed due to inaccuracies at the CAD stage!) Does anyone know what the best - discounted - price for these BV's is? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Hattons prices seem pretty good. Would one of these suit a late 1970s train? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Hattons prices seem pretty good. Would one of these suit a late 1970s train? I have found Hattons good on price and service for other items in the past, they even helped my partner with a Christmas present for me last year too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Regarding price, one thing to be careful of as always is postal charges - just because something is a pound cheaper somewhere if that's the only thing you want you may find that you are paying more to buy it mail order than your local model shop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
black and decker boy Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Observations on the Dapol Models O Gauge SR Brake Van 1 The buffers have no end ribs or pole stop, odd, as RW designed an acceptable version decades ago. 2 The sandbox lid slope is the much steeper, later, uneven 2+2 planked variation 3 The sandbox should have a channel bracket below the one shown at the bottom of each side 4 The sandbox lid is a different design. That shown is more like the later version 5 The numberplate is not raised and the printing is direct onto the solebar 6 *The SR Axlebox design is wrong as the Bolts are on the centreline and the top is not waisted in nor does it have the raised “SR” lettering as originally specified. 7 There are four rivets missing on the solebars above each outer spring hanger. 8 The bolt spacing on the body planking is wrong, the variation in spacing is much too pronounced, It should probably be 3 ½” and 2 7/8” making the correct 6 3/8” plank width. It is more like 4 ” and 2 3/8” which gives a very different effect i.e. should be 1.2 to 1 not 1.7 to 1 error 40% !! If repeated on 2+2 plank vans will cause even more problems 9 Many EVEN plank brake vans seem to have had double diameter buffer bodies, 2+2 had the plain type 10 There are 9 leaves in the 25ton van spring NOT 5. The POWs had the correct number of 5 ! 11 The 4 large bolts on top of the end platform are a bit small and in the wrong position 12 Nuts on end corners of cabin are missing, there should be 9+ on each corner. 13 The riveting on the buffer beam is not as shown in photos. There are 6 more than the correct number 14 A few other “rivets” are misplaced, missing, added in error or the wrong size. 15 Ducket shape is wrong, the windows are nearly 1mm too high up, see 16. 16 Cover strip above the ducket is fully above plank gap, it should be bisected. 17 55995 & 55583 have completely the wrong solebar/axleguard design. Early RH ducket designs have LH ducket solebars with smaller “W” iron axleguards and different solebar riveting arrangement 18 The Ducket has no “screw heads” even though the Bachmann 4mm models does (But too large !) 19 The Sandbox has no “rivets” these are of similar size to the ducket ones. 20 The lower edge of the roof side should be body colour not roof colour. 21 The angle of the double ended tumbler on the brake cross shaft is about 45 degrees out of position. 22 *The Axlebox cover is the same for all models and should be quite different with only one bolt and 2 small rectangular blocks at the top on the BR variants when the SR version was replaced. 23 The model has not got the illuminated tail lamp mentioned in the original specification 24 The Buffers on the BR Vacuum piped version should have thick packers and the van should have screw couplings and vacuum pipes 25 The brakeshoe design is somewhat rudimentary 26 The BR versions do not have the reinforcing plates on the ends of the solebars or the headstocks 27 BR grey vans often had grey solebars & buffer beams, probably a continuation of SR practice when solebars were body colour. Although filthy, 56108 in Paul Bartlett’s photo looks grey to me 28 The buffer heads do not have the distinctive riveted collar behind the face 29 A very thick plate which, on my sample was not fixed and has dropped down, appears below the solebar and should be only a fraction of the thickness. 30 The axleguard shape is suspect, about halfway between the Plate type and W type in design. So I read from your list that some of the smallest detail is missing, mid-shaped / sized or mis-placed but these wagons are generally accurate structurally. Having seen some in the flesh last night, I was very impressed and they look very good and ran well. I'm not sure how much of what you criticise will be viewable at normal distances and in my eyes and certainly does not detract from the model. It is good to know the faults you perceive, especially as you have clearly counted the rivets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbs Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Hi All I can fully recommend Rails of Sheffield having bought many items from them on Ebay and my example of the Dapol SR brake van arrived superbly wrapped on Thursday so that I was able to post my findings early for those interested in having a review before purchase. Their price was better than all the others I checked but they may well have none left now if others did the same as me. As I have mentioned there are still a number of retailers, even now, showing the out of date descriptions. They may well have stock, as many of those liveries would be less than appealing to most modellers. Equally, some preorder customers may receive models they were not expecting and wish to return them. I imagine quite a few had been looking forward to models of a different design to the available kits if they knew how to interpret running numbers but now find the models are of the same batches as already available. Tower Models also have very good prices and probably very good stocks as they buy larger quantities than most retailers. It may well depend on just how many arrived from China of each version, if there was only a small number of each there will be few left, preorders will have taken care of most of them in spite of the fact that buyers were "buying a pig in a poke". I bought mine just so that I could post a review, how charitable is that !! Well !, not really, I expect to be able to sell it on without any trouble and maybe even make a profit. I was not expecting a free sample from Dapol for review you may be surprised to hear. It is a great pity the, nearly two year, hiatus between preparation of the CAD files and the start of tooling was not used to to alter any of the errors and indeed a few new ones were added for good measure. I am rather afraid that the same will probably have happened to the milk tanks as there has been no sign of revised CADs recently. I have no doubt Dapol have disposed of most of the brake vans already and will soon be banking the payments so any reviews now will not affect their sales of the first batch. There are plenty more liveries to do still even without altering the tooling. Regards all adrianbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 So I read from your list that some of the smallest detail is missing, mid-shaped / sized or mis-placed but these wagons are generally accurate structurally. Having seen some in the flesh last night, I was very impressed and they look very good and ran well. I'm not sure how much of what you criticise will be viewable at normal distances and in my eyes and certainly does not detract from the model. It is good to know the faults you perceive, especially as you have clearly counted the rivets. Come on fellows - not this old, 'lets take pot shots at each other' chestnut again! I believe that continuous improvement and striving to do better is commendable and we should encourage our 'suppliers' to do the same. I also believe that the likes of Adrian, Tony Wright (who is never shy at coming forward with critiques) et al should be heard, as their skills and tacit knowledge are invaluable and over the years such knowledge is being lost and eroded due to its perishable nature. The two mainstream reviews that I have read to date, also highlight faults and errors with the Dapol Pillbox - and one is nit picky about the rivets (bolt heads) when there are more glaring issues present (reminds me a little of fiddling whilst Rome burns - I digress) which were completely missed by the reviewer. I am still left wondering if main stream publications wont perform a proper 'critique' due to advertiser revenue/income and thus advertiser (manufacturer) applied financial pressures or whether we are seeing the effect of perishable tacit knowledge coming to the fore as some of the old guard retire? Adrian is a skilled and kind man who has taken the time to outline the issues - he already owns one, or more of the models - and he has thus taken time to share his time and knowledge etc. with us all. I understand and indeed empathise with some people's views on rivet counting - I am not a RC myself - yet I try to observe and I make no value judgements as one man's meat is anothers' poison. Think on this, if we didnt have the likes of Guy Williams (and Pendon), Tony Wright, Adrian Swain et al. we would all still be playing with cheap and cheerful Tri-ang models toys. It is good to know that the models run well as I understand that there is no compensation or springing provided on this long wheelbase vehicle. Re your comments on rivet counting (as directed towards Adrian), if you have comments and/or information to share, why not focus your acerbic comments towards the likes of the manufacturer (and/or magazine reviewers) if you must make such/similar comments at all? Let's all play nicely, we have a common interest and cause - and thus show each other some brotherly and sisterly love and respect. I have to say that the Brakevan's look very pretty indeed and I shall look forward to seeing one close up (but preferably on a layout - it's natural habitat) - but I have the feeling that the Parkside and ABS kits will always be more accurate and my preferred option, but time will tell. As with all RTR I would prefer to see a dimensionally accurate model with the odd detail missing (as opposed to wrongly interpreted or applied) whereby the the after-sales firms can provide me with 'super-detail' bits and bobs so as enable me to bring the model up to spec - leaving others to run 'as is' SFTB if they so wish.. I am not yet sure if my philosophy can be realised with the Dapol Pillbox (judging by Adrian's list)? BTW can anyone see if the Dapol model has the characteristic and prototypical 'joggled' hand/grab rails? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbs Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Hi all and CME The handrails are joggled, perhaps not as much as they should be but certainly reasonable. It is surprising they did not just fix them offset to the fixing eyes and mould a little bit of joggle on the body, it would hardly show, but I suppose the tooling was fairly straightforward to do correctly.. They have also done quite a realistic job of all the internal brake hangers etc but personally, like you, I would have been happier to have all the "Rivets" in the right place and no internal brakegear. The latter could have been added by those keen enough. The idea of replacing a couple of hundred small rivets would certainly not be acceptable. The model also has free floating axleboxes but as anyone who has examined the mechanics of this will know, it does not work unless you have very heavy wheels. Why they did not have a centrally pivotted axle at one end to provide compensation I do not know. The internal brakegear would almost completely hide it so well it would not be a visual intrusion at all. It would probably be possible to add this although it would be necessary to allow upward movement of the axleboxes at that end as well as the downward movement already provided.. I have used this system on some of my models with replaceable PTFE bearing pads so that 1) the friction is low and 2) if they become worn they can be easily replaced. I am not sure how easy it will be to get the wheels out as the brakegear is under the axle and some parts are glued to the floor for some reason. Regards adrianbs .. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Looking at the detail criticism, and with an uncle who worked at Faverdale Wagon Works and another at North Road Locomotive Works I naturally went straight for prototype pictures and compared different vans with each other. My conclusion- the Pillbox brake was no different to the wooden bodied wagons my uncle built- it is unlikely that any two had exactly the same rivet or bolt detail. Rivets generally weren't added against a jig, they were put in by hand, usually against a hole drilled by hand. Ladders were a lot cheaper to supply than jigs. Positions varied, and size depended on "what the lad brought from stores"- not always exactly what was asked for. If it fitted the hole it was used, even if the wrong one. Many wagon builders were on piecework and sending wrong bits back ate into their wages. "It will do" was the byword. In the same way paint was mixed in batches, and this week's wagon wasn't necessarily the same shade as last week's..... Then there are repairs- "make good" did not mean "make identical to new". A few years out from build and you have a fleet of individuals. It was only really by the time of the HAA hoppers that wagons started to actually leave the workshops as identical vehicles - and then they entered traffic and got bashed about. Yes this model has detail faults- every model does (I can't think of ANY totally correct model). But rivets? All the very best Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbs Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 HI Les 1952 I am sorry to have to disagree, once again, with this notion that wagons such as the SR pillbox were built in the way you seem to think. Perhaps your collection of photos is such that you could show all of us less knowledgeable mortals some pictures of SR pillbox brake vans which illustrate your post. I have access to about 90 plus photos of these vans many of which are on the "Paul Bartlett SR brake van" site which is easily accessible on Google. Not one of these photos shows full size vehicles which have the features of the Dapol model which I have mentioned in my "observations" list as being innaccuracies. Not even the many preserved vehicles show any significant departure from the original bolt or rivet positions. The only differences as the years passed were the upgrades already mentioned in my post where strengthening plates were added to the ends of the solebars and behind the buffers. Some vans, very late on, were rebuilt with what appears to be steel sheeted side panels but these are clearly not the intended subject of the Dapol model and even these retain most of the original features. It really is time that this idea that manufacturers of models can hide behind a smokescreen of " the wagons were handbuilt and all our innaccuracies are permissable because of this" is finally knocked on the head. As I have pointed out elsewhere from about 1870, wagon building was being done on an industrial scale with production line techniques, well in advance of Henry Ford who probably got the idea from railway companies. Parts such as metal strapping and wood planks etc etc were produced en masse using jigs and machine shop techniques and whilst the holes in wood planking were drilled with power tools, they were positioned using the predrilled holes in the jig drilled metalwork. Many of the books which have been published on wagons show the assembly lines and clearly illustrate exactly this. The tolerances on railway wagons were down to less than 1/8" .that's only about 2/1000th of an inch on a model and if Dapol wagons were that accurate I would be a very happy modeller. All the metal to metal parts which were rivetted together had to have precisely positioned holes so that they would fit any other part to which they were attached to make them interchangeable.. Similarly the bolt and rivet sizes were all specified precisely on the drawings and would have been issued from the stores in exactly the right numbers and sizes. The whole ethos of the RCH standards was that parts were interchangeable so that repairs could be made easily to wagons in service without having to alter hole positions or sizes. The Midland Railway built about 60,000 standard 5 plank wagons and apart from specified design changes over the production span I have no evidence of wagons looking visually different, even at the end of a 40 year lifespan. The LMS replaced these with a similar number of larger wagons building about 10,000 every year till the later design appeared. Even one off wagons and those built in small numbers used as many existing standard parts as possible to ensure easy repair. This fanciful idea that the man on the shop floor referred to the drawings as each wagon came along and then roughly measured where the fixings were supposed to be, made a punch mark and drilled through to fit whatever bolt size happened to be handy just does not make any sense when you are making up to 40 wagons per day of just one type, This does not include the similar number of other designs also being made each day plus all the general overhauls where planking and metalwork was being replaced or cleaned and repainted. Rivet holes were also precisely positioned since they were either jig drilled or more often punched. Hand drills would NOT in general have been used but multi head vertical drills or power punch and die sets were required to maintain the sort of output required. Incidentally no one has made any comment on this forum about paint colours so I am not quite sure why you have brought that subject up. Paint was certainly mixed in batches and the quantities were precisely specified but it is true that a small amount of black, over or under the required amount would make a small difference. The batches were very large however and it would need a significant error to noticeably change the shade. I am sure the railway companies were rather less worried about the colours of their wagons than they were about the quick and easy repair/overhaul of the rolling stock. Bearing in mind that wagons soon became discoloured I am sure the paint shop foreman would not have worried unduly over wagons but might well have taken more care over coaching stock. I really look forwatd to your pictures of SR brake vans which show ful size wagons with any of the "errors" on the Dapol model so that I can renumber mine to suit, better still one with all the errors. I am sure any other purchasers will be absolutely delighted if you can show the model is as good as the available kits or even better. Regards adrianbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 There has to be a middle ground somewhere in all this. Every Dapol thread is turning into this polarised view of they're great or they're awful and I hold my hands up I'm guilty of being involved in this. It's turning into a grand Adrian bash: Adrian bashes Dapol and people bash Adrian back. I don't know what the answer is, Adrian wants more accurate models, others are happy with general shape, many agree strongly with Adrian many equally disagree. But at the end of the day it will be sales of the product that decide whether in reality people want the level of accuracy Adrian believes is required but if all the models sell then Dapol or any other manufacturer of RTR will be satisfied they got the balance between accuracy and cost right and nothing will change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 These sort of heated debates don't put me off buying the product but it sure puts me off wanting to participate further. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adams442T Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 As I have pointed out elsewhere from about 1870, wagon building was being done on an industrial scale with production line techniques, well in advance of Henry Ford who probably got the idea from railway companies. Dear Adrian, though I wouldn't dare to contradict any of your assertions on wagons, and also being one of the people here who think your contributions useful in deciding whether a particular model is worth 'modding' or not, I believe that the first use of 'modern' production line techniques was from the American Civil War. Early on Union troops had difficulties in repairing and maintaining weapons due to the loose tolerances used in their manufacture. This was quickly remedied, I believe at the instigation of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of Defence to Lincoln, so that rifle components in particular were completely interchangeable. (I believe it was at one time referred to as 'Arsenal Production Methods'.) It was this system that Ford adapted to car production. There were many earlier 'mass production' instances in history from the production of ships' pulley wheels for the R.N. in the Napoleonic Wars, back to Chinese mass production of bronze crossbows with interchangeable parts from about 475BC......................... Hmmmm, perhaps that explains it all................ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymw Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 off topic- hmso published a nice booklet on the Portsmouth Block making machines, iirc but see the wiki, if you like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Block_Mills Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted July 13, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 13, 2014 Another good book is LTC Rolts Tools for the Job, a brief history of the machine tool. One of my favorite reads on my bookshelf! I have to say that I'm with Adrian here, if this had been a loco everyone and their dog would be moaning about it, so ok its a wagon, but i have to say getting it accurate is just as important as getting the loco right, and these days with the technology to scan actual full sized versions the sorts of mistakes that have been noted are, frankly, poor. It costs no more to get things right, and in the long run it's probably cheaper to spend that little bit longer to get things right, as that way the reputation of the company increases. I'm glad that Adrian has written a review, and it's just a shame that the reviews in the modelling press aren't as detailed.... Andy G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
40F Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Observations on the Dapol Models O Gauge SR Brake Van 1 The buffers have no end ribs or pole stop, odd, as RW designed an acceptable version decades ago. 2 The sandbox lid slope is the much steeper, later, uneven 2+2 planked variation 3 The sandbox should have a channel bracket below the one shown at the bottom of each side 4 The sandbox lid is a different design. That shown is more like the later version 5 The numberplate is not raised and the printing is direct onto the solebar 6 *The SR Axlebox design is wrong as the Bolts are on the centreline and the top is not waisted in nor does it have the raised “SR” lettering as originally specified. 7 There are four rivets missing on the solebars above each outer spring hanger. 8 The bolt spacing on the body planking is wrong, the variation in spacing is much too pronounced, It should probably be 3 ½” and 2 7/8” making the correct 6 3/8” plank width. It is more like 4 ” and 2 3/8” which gives a very different effect i.e. should be 1.2 to 1 not 1.7 to 1 error 40% !! If repeated on 2+2 plank vans will cause even more problems 9 Many EVEN plank brake vans seem to have had double diameter buffer bodies, 2+2 had the plain type 10 There are 9 leaves in the 25ton van spring NOT 5. The POWs had the correct number of 5 ! 11 The 4 large bolts on top of the end platform are a bit small and in the wrong position 12 Nuts on end corners of cabin are missing, there should be 9+ on each corner. 13 The riveting on the buffer beam is not as shown in photos. There are 6 more than the correct number 14 A few other “rivets” are misplaced, missing, added in error or the wrong size. 15 Ducket shape is wrong, the windows are nearly 1mm too high up, see 16. 16 Cover strip above the ducket is fully above plank gap, it should be bisected. 17 55995 & 55583 have completely the wrong solebar/axleguard design. Early RH ducket designs have LH ducket solebars with smaller “W” iron axleguards and different solebar riveting arrangement 18 The Ducket has no “screw heads” even though the Bachmann 4mm models does (But too large !) 19 The Sandbox has no “rivets” these are of similar size to the ducket ones. 20 The lower edge of the roof side should be body colour not roof colour. 21 The angle of the double ended tumbler on the brake cross shaft is about 45 degrees out of position. 22 *The Axlebox cover is the same for all models and should be quite different with only one bolt and 2 small rectangular blocks at the top on the BR variants when the SR version was replaced. 23 The model has not got the illuminated tail lamp mentioned in the original specification 24 The Buffers on the BR Vacuum piped version should have thick packers and the van should have screw couplings and vacuum pipes 25 The brakeshoe design is somewhat rudimentary 26 The BR versions do not have the reinforcing plates on the ends of the solebars or the headstocks 27 BR grey vans often had grey solebars & buffer beams, probably a continuation of SR practice when solebars were body colour. Although filthy, 56108 in Paul Bartlett’s photo looks grey to me 28 The buffer heads do not have the distinctive riveted collar behind the face 29 A very thick plate which, on my sample was not fixed and has dropped down, appears below the solebar and should be only a fraction of the thickness. 30 The axleguard shape is suspect, about halfway between the Plate type and W type in design. The above mentioned are those points which might help anyone who wishes to make an informed choice about whether to purchase these models. If anyone disagrees with the accuracy of the above please feel free to comment. It is entirely up to the individual to decide if the model is of a standard they feel acceptable and I simply offer these notes as a result of careful examination. It is very unlikely that many of these errors wil be mentioned in the model press reviews and the model will no doubt get glowing reports just as the Bachmann 4mm versions did. They are somewhat less accurate but still won the "Wagon of the Year" award. The accuracy of this model is no reflection on the efforts of Richard Webster as the design goes back virtually unaltered to early 1912 and although I was already aware of most of these problems he was only allowed to "Fix" the roof errors. Whether this was due to time or cost constraints I do not know. A few of the errors are due to CAD mirror imaging without checking, others simply to lack of checks against the numerous available sources of information. Correcting most errors would unfortunately require about half of the tooling to be remade but this may be what will happen if it is ever considered financially viable to do the 2+2 plank variants. as most of the body tooling will have to be new anyway and some of the errors will disappear automatically as they relate to the use of the 2+2 design on this version. Regards all adrtianbs So in short you will not be buying one then ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbs Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Hi 40F Presumably you have not read all the posts and specifically post 13 ?? Fortunately my efforts over 40 years producing models to my standards have left me in the, perhaps, enviable position of being able throw my money away on a poor quality model so that you can have the benefit of a properly researched review and not have to rely on those produced by most of the model press. However if anyone wishes to buy one of these models I will shortly be disposing of it, probably when the stocks of the first batch have run out and the next batch is arriving at a significantly higher price as seems likely in view of Dapols comments in the Gauge O Gazette.. They say a good business man should know when to buy and when to sell. In spite of my comments I am absolutely sure there will be many modellers quite happy with Dapol's standards although it would be nice to think that one day their standards may match those of others already producing RTR or kits. I did say Henry Ford probably got the production line idea from railway companies although I suspect the Chinese Terrracotta warrior production could beat most other instances in terms of scale anyway but were unknown until recently. I think the railways probably had one of the first moving assembly lines similar to car production where raw materials came in one end and finished vehicles rolled out the other , very similar to the Ford assembly plant. Regards . .adrianbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfsboy Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Wow I was going to buy one but feel violated and dirty .I'll go back to Hornby tinplate and try to detox . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.