adrianbs

Hi All Thanks for the correction Nick, sorry about the typo somehow 1878 became 1897 , No idea how as I knew it was only 5 or 6 years after the first batch that the later batches were built with pumps and the others were retrofitted from then on as they passed through works. Proves i'm fallible anyway just as I said, and an awful typist as well. I call the blocks around the coupling hook "pockets" as do others but there is probably a correct term. The steam transfer pipes in front of the cab were removed fairly early on and Brighton and Thames would never have had them as it appears only the first batch of 6 were so fitted. I am not sure how the surplus steam reached the other tank to be returned to the chimney via the other condensing pipe after the connection was removed however. Regards adrianbs

Hi All. I have discussed this post with Andy York and he has agreed that my findings are of sufficient value to be posted and has unbarred me from the topic. There is no doubt other contributors will disagree and try to discredit me. I have therefore agreed that I will not bang on till your ear drums bleed and you wish to stick pins in your eyes nor will I be provoked, so don’t waste your time and forum space. Intelligent and useful points may well be answered politely, the rest ignored. I do not anticipate any alterations to the models as Dapol have not replied to these points. As I have three locos on order and would like to try to upgrade them I will investigate the possibility of new toolbox mouldings and the production of transfer sheets of matching lining to rectify the worst of the errors with some instructions as to how to alter some of the other points. This can only be started once I have a production sample so do not enquire for some time. The worst fault is probably the rear toolbox which is nothing like Brighton or Thames would have had in the original Stroudley condition or indeed at any other period. It seems to be a straight scale up from the original Dapol 4mm model and N gauge version. Originally the boxes were much wider, just less than the width between buffer centres so that the lamps could be fitted to the brackets, and they were tight against the upward buffer beam extensions. They were also slightly taller and with much shallower sloping lids in most cases although some were steeper but nowhere near as steep as the model. When locos were Motor fitted they were cut back slightly to avoid the castings fitted behind the raised buffers. The next fault is that Terriers until 1897 had NO Westinghouse pumps at all and when fitted they were much lower down, just above the footplate and with very different plumbing. Considerable ingenuity would be needed to correct this. Probably the next worst error would be the contours of the domed roof assuming it has not been changed. The Warley images do not unfortunately show this. Again this seems to be a carry over from the 4mm version. At the early period portrayed the coupling hook pockets were not present on the buffer beam. In the Stroudley era the lubricator boxes as shown on the tank fronts were not fitted The smokebox door hinge straps look well out of scale being too far apart and undersize The tankside unfortunately has the later 4 additional bolts, not on locos at this period and because of the lining will be difficult to remove without damaging the paintwork. The handrail knobs on the tank tops are much too tall and should be little more than half the height. This seems to throw out the handrail alignment somewhat. Without better photos I cannot see if the shape of the plate supporting the tanks has been altered or the bolts, holding the pannier tanks on, are now of adequate size. As noted by someone else, the balance weights on the centre drivers are not really the correct shape. There are other minor errors and no doubt ones I have not spotted as I do not have a sample to check like others have had, although they have either not noticed the errors or have been ignored, as in the past. If you can see others, do comment, I am not the all-seeing expert . Dapol has posted that there are some small tweaks still to be done but what they are is not stated. I have no idea when the model is due for release and it does seem that in spite of promises by Joel and Richard, once again a seriously flawed model may appear as it is due very soon. Regards all adrianbs

Hi All When can we get back on topic, I am having withdrawal symptoms with nothing to criticize !!! regards adrianbs

Hi All, I rather think that in the case of moulding sets of parts for a loco, the tooling is much more like that of an Airfix kit, i.e. all of the parts for one loco in one or more moulds.if the parts do not require multi-way slides, i.e for parts with just a front and back like a kit. If there are enough duplicated parts then perhaps that mould would just have one of each and the production run would be doubled. The cost of making moulds is such that there would be no good reason for making a multi impression tool of one or two parts as the runs would be very short and the tools would need to be set up each time. The cost of setting up tools and test running can be more than the cost of actually producing a small batch of components in the order of 1000 off ( less than a days production ).. Complex parts like the main body of a loco will almost certainly be made on a much more sophisticated (and expensive ) machine and the tool may only contain a single component although it might be possible to add another one or two parts. The only tooling which might be multi impression would be for identical components required in very large numbers across a whole range of different products, for example model car tyres in the case of Oxford Diecast. A classic case of the use of multi impression tools causing havoc was the Mainline J.72 which many will remember had disastrous running problems initially. I know because I had one of the first which "waddled" itself off the track. Having investigated the problem I found that the diecast wheels were made in a 6 impression tool, each with an identification number stamped on the back. Had all the cavities been absolutely identical there would have been no problems but the cavities varied, with the axle stubs not always concentric with the rims nor in relation to the crank pin holes. Some locos ran quite well as they had a random selection of the 6 wheels which just happened to match, others, like mine had the worst possible selection so that the coupling rods jammed. To get them to work the axle holes were hugely enlarged but although the wheels went round they lifted themselves off the track sufficiently to derail even on straight track. !!! Not a good start for a newcomer to the market, I wonder if that loco ever had profit figures in the black for the few years Mainline existed. Regards all adrianbs

Hi Mod 4, Ok So I know it's off topic but the details stationmaster requested are still on that site and have been for 6 years if only he were willing to check, including catalogue info in post 2. I don't really see much point in changing them as I get plenty of requests from that site, far too many actually as it stops me watching RM web sites. Regards adrianbs.

Hi Stationmaster Well. in view of promised delivery dates by kernow in the past, It is difficult to believe a word from them or DJ Models, previously with Dapol, who had made similar unfulfilled claims. The latter has accumulated quite a list of promised models ( Over 100 counting livery variants and commissions at the present count ) but I believe none are on sale as yet, please correct me if I am wrong. Oxford have only just announced their entry into the market so I have to give them the benefit of my doubts. I am well aware at what stage all three claim to be but in one case that assumes the faulty model will go ahead without being retooled, as there have been no corrected CADs or prepros shown on their site. Another models is being produced by the same person involved with the previous model and the third has no track record at all apart from claims that they have been making similar unspecified products for an unknown customer. This makes it difficult to check but their activities in the model road vehicle market give me much greater confidence I have to say. Most people seem to be able to find me quite easily, they just google a.b.s. models I am not quite sure why that is considered to be so difficult. I am actually retired but as no one wants to buy a business like mine I keep going. In 3 years time I reach 75 and, assuming I make it, the whole lot shuts down and I might spend all my time on RMweb. If people want lists the price is £2-00 for one and £1 for each extra covering (1) O Gauge Railway; -(2) All 4mm, N Gauge and non railway 7mm and the third (3)) covers 7mm Ng. Post inc. All in stamps please. Naturally only time will tell who gets their model on sale first and more importantly whether it is any good. Regards all adrianbs

Hi all Looks like it might be a race between Kernow's O2 and Oxford's Radial to reach the finishing post. If Kernow rush their model out with the current errors they could just win but if they are worried enough to think a retool necessary then I think Oxford have the edge, assuming their model is already correct (the front of the smokebox looks a bit odd in the latest CAD ) Oxford will be selling via the shops so might be more expensive but the greater exposure may well mean much larger sales and this will keep the price down a bit. It will also be interesting to see if DJ Models' J.94 beats them both since it seems to be more advanced than the O2 at least. Are they all going to be hit by the new round of wage rises in China and will the Chinese New Year holidays bring everything to a standstill for nearly a month when many of the workers fail to return as seems to have happened in the past. Will the prices of items pre-ordered well over 2 years ago be honoured bearing in mind the huge increases in costs over that period and the additional cost if production runs don't start until 2015, after the next wages rise. Tower have already announced RRP prices for Dapol O gauge locos fitted with sound and DCC in 2015 which double the price of the 2014 analogue version, I don't think these systems cost anywhere near £200 so just how much will an analogue loco be in 2015 ????? ( Answers or guesstimates welcome I am sure ) It looks like there is likely to be a fight to the death with all these new products coming to the market when the world economy appears to be in trouble again. Even the supposedly buoyant British economy will not be immune and once the election is past who knows what will happen ? Are the big boys Bachmann and Hornby holding back releases till next year so that they can justify significant price hikes when the minnows have to announce major increases which they have managed to avoid for a couple of years. I'm not so sure everything in the garden is coming up roses Regards adrianbs

Hi Nimbus The Quad-arts have been a major need for years to go with the N2 but ideally you need both types of 4 car set to run the normal 8 car train. Why not the Quints, which did run singly, and the N7 ( or another GE tank ? ) to complete the train in view of the current influx of other GE prototypes. Ideal of course for sharp curves if the articulation is adjustable and a very short train overall. I am not sure if the Quints formation would enable parts of the Quads to be accurately modelled by changing the formation and the bogies may need changing but in either case I believe 5 body shells are needed to be correct, Harris's book does not go into great detail about this. Regards all adrianbs PS I did suggest this in connection with the Hornby Magazine Diesel brake tender, had they done the version with Heavy Duty bogies but as there seem to have only been two DBTs like this, that variant would be most unlikely although an accurate bogie would be useful.

Hi Dunsignalling, According to RCTS it would appear three locos for the Branch were specifically altered to suit the line with increased bogie swing but it does not say that the slidebars were altered at the same time although there is a degree of inference. The third loco, 521, still retained single slide bars so again the inference could be that the slidebars were not a factor needed for the line and that the other two locos may have already had double slide bars fitted. Bearing in mind the photo date of 1907 for 415 the fitting of new slidebars may have been done at about that time or earlier. The latter photo is a posed official and may be the loco ex-works showing the alterations made to the first one dealt with. PW&SWJR has correctly listed the other locos with Double slidebars as I missed a line in Bradley but there is no mention of when these were modified and it could be read that they had already been changed OR that they were changed after 1913/4. Regards all adrianbs

Hi PD & SWJR According to "BIG" Bradley the locos you mention being fitted with double slidebars were nearly all withdrawn in 1920?? (1922?) so if they had new slidebars it must have been quite a few year earlier. I don't have "small" Bradley which I assume these details come from and Bradley was not infallible but nevertheless our best overall source. If these other locos were fitted with double slidebars it may well have been at the same time as the 2 branch engines i.e. around 1913/4 although the Dated? photo of 415 in 1907 then becomes something of an enigma as this predates Urie's term of office. There will be many other similar questions I have no doubt. Regards all adrianbs

Hi All and Dunsignalling, Bradley et al. give various locos with Double slidebars and they don't appear to have been original equipment. The Beyer Peacock batch of 12 Nos 415-426 seem to had been built with single slidebars but a photo of 415 has Double by 1907 and the two locos for the Lyme Regis branch appear to have been so equipped in 1913/4 Nos (0)125 and (0)419 No other mention of double slidebars appears in any of my other literature and no other locos are shown in photos apart from 520 which although not mentioned specifically certainly finished up with double slidebars on the branch after alteration.. Whether other locos were fitted would be very interesting to know. There may well have been some interchange of parts using components from scrapped locos but there seems to have been no general use of the double slidebar design and probably not from new at all. Is it possible there were never more than 2 locos so fitted at any one time ?? There is no mention of the use of Fluted coupling rods either, apart from one photo caption !!! Minefield ?? what minefield ?? Boom !! Regards adrianbs

Hi All, In order to maximise sales one assumes the 3 Lyme Regis survivors will be the subject of most of the models offered as earlier locos can still be produced using these as a basis. The different interpretations of the same basic design by the 4 different builders make some variants far more expensive to tool up for The heavily rivetted, short tank Beyer Peacock batch of 12 being the worst followed by the short tank flush rivetted R Stephenson batch. Even the length of the long tanks seems to vary, a true nightmare of possible variants. The Bluebell loco itself has had a least 4 physical reincarnations since last on the EKR in 1946 not to mention all the varied liveries over the period until the present day. One in late SR Maunsell livery would be my choice especially if the Lyme Regis re-framed LSWR coaches, rebuilt in the mid 1930s, were to appear to complement the loco. Unfortunately the Bluebell loco was on the EKR at that time and neither of the Lyme Radials were an exact match. Hornby already make a suitable Maunsell coach to portray the single coach used in pictures around 1959 and the loco at that time was in the condition shown in the Oxfordrail publicity with lined black, late crest BR livery. Regards all adrianbs

Hi Peter Bedding, Confucius he say "Never open mouth without check to see if foot fits" Dontapedalogy easily avoided by quick check about Maunsell Coach underframes. Restriction 0;1 & 4, first, second and third phase standard Maunsell coaches all built to 59ft BODY LENGTH on 58ft length chassis over headstocks. Non corridor stock = FLAT ends, Corridor stock = BOW ends. Pages 117 et seq in "An Illustrated History of Southern Coaches" by Mike King, indispensible book and friend, no commercial connection, not even free copy but live in hope after this plug. Incidentally some kits of these Lyme Regis coaches were/are incorrect as the Guards Duckets are staggered and not opposite, as I and others have found out to our cost, too late. Regards adrianbs

Hi all and Roy P It's going to be a very long time before OxfordRail have produced as many locos as DJ models have in the pipeline !! adrianbs

Hi all Tad worried that there is no mention of 4mm/ft scale, I do hope they know what scale to use. It would be nice to see the Lyme Regis coaches, even just one, as they often ran singly but the only problem with that is they would have to make a complete duplicate of Hornby's Maunsell underframe, very expensive unless they have some arrangement to co-operate. The picture was a bit misleading as the version shown has different frames to the Bluebell Loco and an Adams chimney, does this indicate they will cover other variants of the class in the future or just stick with the Neilson series of 11 locos. Modelling the EKR just got a bit more interesting. Regards all adrianbs