Dapol 9' WB 7 Plank open

[ColHut]

G'day,

 

Would it be fair to say that the newer 00 gauge Dapol 7 plank PO wagons on 9' WB wooden solebars are reasonably accurate representations? I am unsure as to their external dimensions though. Are they based on a particular wagon builder's prototype?

 

Regards

[Poor Old Bruce]

Dapol produce in three scales. Which one are you interested in?

[ColHut]

Sorry, the 00 gauge version. Post amended.

 

Regards

[Poor Old Bruce]

I was disappointed when I first saw the Dapol 9ft wb coal wagon. They are suppposedly based on a RCH specification but somehow, to me, they don't have the right 'look' so I have never bought one (perhaps I should just for comparison purposes). For a start, they only have brakes on one side anyway which seems odd for a wagon representing a prototype produced at a time when brakes on both sides were becoming a requirement, I would have thought it easier to put brakes on both sides and chop one off if you didn't want it.

 

Personally I have umpteen Bachmann seven and eight plank wagons which make up a coal train to plod round Mickleover MRG's Duffield layout and I have recently bought some of the Oxford examples which seem just as good. If you want any older wagons for variety, try the Hornby 5-plank type, they may not be considered hyper fine scale (especially those huge couplings which make a 15ft wagon take up more space than a Bachmann 16ft 6in one!) but, to me they look the part.

 

These are my personal opinions, for what they are worth.

[ColHut]

Thanks Poor Old Bruce. I was partly trying to establish if it had real identifiable prototype. I have some of the new Bachmann types and they are very pretty and detailed, although I doubt the actual PO wagons were that similar in construction but happy to be corrected.

[Poor Old Bruce]

I think most models have what you call a "real identifiable prototype", it's how faithfully the model manufacturer replicates it which is sometime the problem. Just look at how long it has taken for anyone to produce a RTR cattle truck of the correct length!

 

Wagon builders like Charles Roberts, Gloucester, Hurst Nelson, Wigan and several others would probaly each have their own interpretation of the various RCH specifications which were (among other things) intended to standardise spare parts for repair purposes. If your wagon was crippled somewhere and the local Wagon Repairs guys could fit a standard part, it was on the move again pretty quickly. If your wagon had what would be known in the trade as 'bastard' parts (i.e of dubious ancestry), your wagon could be waiting around for some time while you got the required bits and pieces and then got them to the wagon. The wagon would be out of traffic, the load would be late to its destination and you would be losing money.

[Nile]

Some comparison photos for you. Bachmann RCH_1923 on the left, Slater's RCH_1907 on the right, Dapol one centre.

[ColHut]

Thanks for that. Great comparison shot. A bit taller 6-9" perhaps and no strapping, (like the Slater' kit) - although that seems to have been optional.

 

The solebar also looks deeper.

 

Regards

[petethemole]

Enlarging the photos shows that both the Dapol and Slaters wagons have representation of the bolts for internal diagonal strapping, which was quite common.

[ColHut]

Thanks for that. I see now the bolts on the diagonal, although the Slaters kit does not appear to have the straps visible on the opposite inside, and the Dapol wagon has a coal load.

 

Regards

[bbishop]

Wagon builders like Charles Roberts, Gloucester, Hurst Nelson, Wigan and several others would probaly each have their own interpretation of the various RCH specifications which were (among other things) intended to standardise spare parts for repair purposes.

Roughly speaking, the RCH 1887 spec was fairly loose; the 1907 spec much tighter, with effectively just the Charles Roberts and Gloucester latest designs getting the nod; the 1923 spec was even tighter, seemingly based on only Charles Roberts' designs.

 

Bill

[Poor Old Bruce]

Thanks for the photos Neil. The Dapol wagon looks shorter than the Bachmann one. What is its length over headstock please?

[Graham456]

Very interesting comparison picture,with the couplings removed my opinion is there is not a lot in it, the Dapol wagon has thicker walled sides,and haveing only one set of brakes should only be be for early layout or weathered to look old and used,am I right in remembering it has a wooden underframe? rather than a rch steel, mine are in the roof and it's hot to go and check,but I am happy enough with them far better then the over long stuff we have been supplyed for years, if you ran rtr 10ft wagons with slaters ,Cambrian kits it made the kits look silly, but the Dapol's blend in better

Now if you remove the gert big bumper that Hornby fit (thankfully with a screw) from their 9ft stock, open up the end holes of Bachman mini couplings to be C's like the Hornby lumps,despite the pins spacing being different the Bachman ones will go on improving the look, not enough no doubt. to please some but enough for tension lock users

[BG John]

Not 7 planks, but here's a comparison between (from left to right) Bachmann, Hornby and Slaters*. On the RTR ones, I've removed the tension lock couplings, and pulled the original wheels out to EM gauge, but done nothing else to them, yet. My interest is pre-grouping, so that may bias my view, but to me the Bachmann looks too long, although may be fine for a more modern wagon. I'm quite impressed with the Hornby, and it's only spoiled by the brake levers, that are very fine in side view, but are actually very chunky solid mouldings attached to the brakes, axleguards and solebars. Especially annoying as they'll be coming off, along with the brakes, on one side.

 

What strikes me about the Dapol 7 plank, is the wide gap between the planks. It's quite obvious in the photos above, and can also be seen here in unpainted form on Dapol's web site. Some other Dapol wagons seem much better, but that rather spoils it for me. I'm tempted to buy a few other open wagon bodies at that price though, chop them about, and add a chassis chopped about from Ratio, Cambrian or someone.

 

*I've just noticed that I picked a Slaters wagon that I hadn't got round to fitting a brake lever to. I only built it 35 or so years ago, so can't really expect it to be finished yet!

[Nile]

Thanks for that. I see now the bolts on the diagonal, although the Slaters kit does not appear to have the straps visible on the opposite inside, and the Dapol wagon has a coal load.

 

Regards

 

Slater's kits don't have any internal detail, one of their downsides. I scribed the planks but missed the strapping.

 

Thanks for the photos Neil. The Dapol wagon looks shorter than the Bachmann one. What is its length over headstock please?

 

I've measured the 3 wagons.

Length over headstocks:

B - 66.0

D - 64.1

S - 59.3

 

Height (railtop to top of planks:

B - 35.0

D - 36.5

S - 32.3

 

all in mm.

[Trains&armour]

As to the Hornby 5 plank wagons, I've just been experimenting with one.

I,m going to write a blog about the process, but here are some previews.

 

This is what you start out with:

 

 

And after removing the Hornby bumpers, cutting loose and thinning the solid brakehandles, adding new couplings , you end up with an underframe like this:  (couplings are Dingham's)

 

 

Reassembly and a spot of weathering:

 

[BG John]

And after removing the Hornby bumpers, cutting loose and thinning the solid brakehandles, adding new couplings and a spot of weathering, this is the end result: (couplings are Dingham's)

That brake lever is a big improvement. I'll have to have a go at mine.

[Il Grifone]

The 1923 RCH specification required 16'6" over headstocks. Earlier wagons could be shorter.

 

The Hornby model is supposed to be a 1907 specification Gloucester wagon like the Slater's one (they also do a Roberts version).

 

Dapol's is again a 1907 specification wagon, but the curb rail has not been notched to fit between the headstocks making the sides a bit too tall. Correctly it has only one set of brakes. (At the time the GWR was almost alone in fitting brakes operable from both sides, resulting in their costs for brake blocks being higher than their competitors.) Later legislation required brakes that could be applied from either side, but modifying the wagon stock took many years.