cctransuk

44846 - 44346 was a 4F. Regards, John Isherwood.

David, Possibly 44480? Regards, John Isherwood.

I don't understand - Kitmaster produced the rotating bunker type; Heljan are to produce both. .... or am I missing your point entirely? Regards, John Isherwood.

Are you certain it's 42685 - I read it as 42686. (... or is there a written record)? Regards, John Isherwood,

Odd - to the best of my knowledge, diagram 556 had Stanier bogies. Regards, John Isherwood.

If, like mine, your D1000 is missing a few roof panel lifting rings, you may be interested to learn how replacements can easily be produced and fitted. Take some fine enamelled copper wire, as used in 12V motors, etc. and a length of 0.4mm. diameter wire. Form the enamelled wire into a tight U around the 0.4mm. wire; grip the two tails of the U and turn the 0.4mm. wire so as to form a small ring with a twisted 'stalk'. Cut the stalk a couple of millimetres from the ring. Drill a hole to suit the 'stalk' at the location of the missing ring; grip the replacement ring in tweezers, and dip the 'stalk' in a tiny puddle of superglue. Insert the stalk in the hole. Result, after a touch of matching paint, is virtually indistinguishable from the etched originals, and *much* more secure. I've a feeling that, over time, all of the etched rings on my D1000 will be replaced by wire ones! ..... oh, and Phoenix Desert Sand is a dead match for the Dapol version. Regards, John Isherwood.

Mike / DapolDave, I have been concerned as to the provenance of this proposed model from the day that it was announced; see my posts 17 & 24 in this thread. It has been suggested that the BR diagrams may not accurately reflect what was actually built, but it would help us to make constructive comment if we knew which BR diagram the model is meant to represent. Regards, John Isherwood.

I am certainly not attacking the masses; my comments were directed at those few who did not contribute to the discussions during the product development period, but who now are criticising the final result. (In which connection it is true that I had assumed that, like me, most people use the View New Content facility. Clearly I was mistaken in doing so). As to the second quote, you miss my point. I believe that we are mistaken in believing that in-house designers can be expected to have detailed knowledge of every project that they undertake. It is not viable for a company to hire a designer expert in each subject, solely for the duration of that single product. The in-house designer will use the information known to him / her. That is how indifferent / inaccurate models have appeared over the years, and still do so. DapolDave recognised these facts and, uniquely, turned to a body of potential customers who would collectively be able to provide extremely detailed prototype information. In doing so, he has produced what I believe to be the (to date) ultimate UK RTR model. I am certain that any in-house designer could not have achieved these standards without the input that RMweb members provided. If all of those who now criticise the model were genuinely unaware of all of the consultation efforts that went into the design process, I apologise. My principle concern is that DapolDave should not be disheartened, and that he will continue to allow us to have input into the design process. In passing, I would make a couple of observations, (not criticisms), on D1000. As seems to be generally agreed, the black surround to the head-code glazing would have been best omitted as it is not possible, apparently, to apply a thin black surround to the apertures. The problems of access to install head-codes was a result of manufacturer assembly error; I understand that future batches will have the intended clip-fit disassembly facility. IMHO, the etched roof panel lifting rings are, with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps a step too far. The idea is excellent, but the scale-sized components seem simply to be too small to be firmly glued in place. My D1000 had lost several in transit, and more have disappeared during minimal handling. I am wholly opposed to Hornby's 'design clever' approach, but a rethink of this aspect of future Dapol D&E models would perhaps be wise. Regards, John Isherwood.

DapolDave must be considering throwing in the towel and taking up something uncontroversial such as politics! I don't wish to get into the rights and wrongs of the Dapol model - for me, it's superb as it is. However, I fail to see how *anyone* with the vaguest interest in the Westerns could fail to have been aware of the development of the Dapol model. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/33639-Dapol-western-update/ Thirty-seven (!!) pages, starting in March 2011, of the most intricately detailed debate, critical appraisal, and positive input, which must constitute by far the most interactive product development ever in the field of model railways. I cannot understand how such knowledgeable members failed to be aware of, let alone participate in, this community effort to get a model correct once and for all. The excuse that "I wasn't aware of it" cuts no ice with me, I'm afraid; and the comment that "there's people at Dapol that are "paid" to check these things" strikes me as totally 'dog in the manger'! If you have knowledge, and you're going to be critical of the final product, why on earth would you *not* come forward when the opportunity for change was there? It is now well established that there are people who love the opportunity to show off their superior knowledge when it's too late to alter the 'offending detail; I draw my own conclusions. Regards, John Isherwood.

Yes. John Isherwood.

It would appear that the glued cab interiors apply throughout the desert sand and blue batches that are currently in this country; (see postings by DapolDave above). Regards, John.

Perfect; my memory was at fault anyway - it was 1962 that WESTERN ENTERPRISE was trialled on the S&D. Headcodes will be printed later this morning. Thanks again, John Isherwood.

Andy, Are you sure that your review model was from the production run? My D1000 doesn't look like that - the bit that appears to be foam on yours is solid plastic on D1000. The cab interior and headcode box are VERY securely glued to each other and to the body. My warning against dismantling stands - I learned the hard way and I'm not ham-fisted. Regards, John Isherwood.

See http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/67674-Dapol-western-photo-review/page-28?&p=957505 Regards, John Isherwood.

Nope - just a quick shot on the workbench. The 'trick of the light' is probably the result of slight under-exposure - it was a quick shot, after all! Regards, John.

Does anyone know what the 1961 four character headcodes for the Up and Down "Pines Express" would have been? Why? Well, surely everyone recalls the load tests of D1000 over the S&D? No? Well, you're living in the wrong parallel universe, then! Regards, John Isherwood, Cambridge Custom Transfers.

The problem is that the cab interior and headcode / glazing components, which were designed to be clip-fit for easy removal, have been glued in by the Chinese assemblers. My experience (above) is that any attempt to access the interior of the headcode glazing will almost certainly cause damage. DapolDave has urgently contacted the manufacturers in China to tell them NOT to glue in the relevant components on the main production batches. So - it's hopefully only a problem for us D1000 owners. Regards, John Isherwood.

Another tip for D1000 owners. On my model, the buffer heads extended a little too far, showing excessively long shanks. I cut some small rectangles of 20 thou. / 0.5mm. plastic card with a central notch, to just fit over the shanks. With the buffer heads compressed, I slipped these over the shafts behind the buffer-beams and secured them to the rear of the beam with a tiny touch of solvent. Result - buffer heads with correct length shanks. Regards, John Isherwood.

Attached is a quick photo of 4mm. high (1ft) headcode characters applied to the outside of the headcode glazing of my D1000. Bear in mind that these have NOT been properly settled down with decal softener until I'm fully convinced that they are the right size. That said, they look pretty good to me. What do others think? Regards, John Isherwood, Cambridge Custom Transfers.

Dave, On balance, I'd leave off the black surround, for the following reasons. A tale of woe! Firstly, I had extreme difficulty removing the cab interior and light channel components to gain access to remove the headcode glazing / lightbox. The components were heavily glued in and I managed to break off all of the marker light clear rods; (which ARE extremely thin). Secondly, and VERY foolishly, I decided to use lighter fuel to remove the black surrounds from the headcode glazing. VERY bad move - the clear plastic headcode panel / lightbox immediately crazed and cracked! Repairable with solvent but no longer unblemished. Anyway, the upshot was that I reassembled the model without trying to add the headcodes, wishing that I'd not bothered in the first place. All is not lost, though. Fortunately, I have the ability to produce waterslide headcodes to apply to the outside of the headcode glazing, as you had intended with the self-adhesive ones supplied. In view of the 'controversy' over the headcode character height, I've printed the panels with characters to match Heljan ones, and also some with 4mm. / 1ft. characters, which was suggested by another poster to be the correct size. My initial impression is that the 4mm. / 1ft. ones will fit and look correct, but I'll report back when I've applied them; hopefully with a photo. My strong advice to other proud owners of D1000 is do NOT try to fit headcodes inside the glazing! Also, be VERY careful when handling the body; the etched lifting rings are very fragile and, understandably, easily knocked off. Despite the foregoing, which was entirely my own fault, I am extremely pleased with my WESTERN ENTERPRISE. Regards, John Isherwood, Cambridge Custom Transfers.

As per other postings here, the British did have rail-mounted guns. Regards, John Isherwood.

Jon, Spot on - nothing that large was used for transporting anything; it fired long range projectiles. This may be the British version, but the Germans had similar guns, on type of which was known as Big Bertha. Lima, I think, made a RTR model, and it was also available as a plastic kit. Google 'rail guns' for more than you ever wanted to know! Regards, John Isherwood.

For what it's worth, that's how I remember to maroon D1000s at Birmingham Snow Hill, when they were new. Regards, John Isherwood.

Sort of. According to the BR diagrams (not infallible!), of the 'rounded' type :- 1/555 with 8'-6'' Gresley bogies were 28'-9'' over headstocks; 1/556 with 9'-0'' Stanier bogies were 31'-9'' over headstocks; 1/557 with 9'-0'' Stanier bogies were 28'-9'' over headstocks. So, is the Hornby Magazine / Dapol model to be a 'short' or a 'long' bodied version? A 'short' body could be fitted with both Gresley and Stanier bogies! Regards, John Isherwood.

I make no claim to be an expert but my research, (which includes reference to the BR diagrams - no guarantee of accuracy!) - and David Larkin's data sheets, has produced the following list of brake tenders :- Diagram 1/555; Lot 3446; built Cowlairs; B964035, ExDE320848; non-standard 'flat' body; diagram shows 'rounded' body & Gresley bogies. Diagram 1/555; Lot 3446; built Cowlairs; B964036/7, ExDE320922/3; diagram shows 'rounded' body & Gresley bogies. Diagram 1/555; Lot 3448; built York; B964038-105; diagram shows 'rounded' body & Gresley bogies. Diagram 1/555; Lot 3500; built York; B964112-121; diagram shows 'rounded' body & Gresley bogies. Diagram 1/556; Lot 3442; built Derbyshire; B964000-4; diagram shows 'rounded' body & Stanier bogies. Diagram 1/556; Lot 3443; built Central; B964005-19; diagram shows 'rounded' body & Stanier bogies. Diagram 1/556; Part Lot 3444; built Standard; B964020-8; diagram shows 'rounded' body & Stanier bogies. Diagram 1/556; Part Lot 3445; built Standard; B964031-4; diagram shows 'rounded' body & Stanier bogies. Diagram 1/557; Part Lot 3444; built Standard; B964029; diagram shows 'rounded' body & Stanier bogies. Diagram 1/557; Part Lot 3445; built Marcroft; B964030; diagram shows 'rounded' body & Stanier bogies. Diagram 1/558; Lot 3449; built Stratford; B964106-111; diagram shows 'angular' body & Gresley bogies. I haven't had time to check how all this ties in (or not!) with published photos; I expect that there will be a flurry of postings pointing out the inaccuracy of the BR records. Notwithstanding that, it would appear that the Hornby Magazine model will be either :- Diagram 1/555; Lot 3446; built Cowlairs; B964036/7, ExDE320922/3; Diagram 1/555; Lot 3448; built York; B964038-105; or Diagram 1/555; Lot 3500; built York; B964112-121. On the face of it, simply substituting Stanier bogies would produce Diagrams 1/556 and 1/557. Let the barrage commence !! Regards, John Isherwood.