Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OO Class 59 E.P.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • steadfast
    commented on 's reply
    8) The extra damper was fitted around 1998 to 59101-3 and 59001-5. 59104 and the 59/2s were built with it. AS well as the damper itself, at the exhaust end there's a kick plate protecting you from standing on it.

  • 159220
    commented on 's reply
    I did say the low res photo is difficult to identify some details clear. See your photo highlights an error I did not spot. The seam between body and chassis seems too pronounced/thin. (In fact the WiPac light pods could do with being more pronounced too.)

  • lyneux
    replied
    Hi Andy,

    Many thanks for sharing the EP shots, it's great to see concrete progress on this model. Rotating axle-boxes is a great feature and very distinctive on the prototype so well done for replicating this!

    I admit to a vested interest in the 59/1 (given that I'm building a layout based on part of Whatley quarry) so I'll confine my comments to the 59/1. Please see the comments below and annotated comparison shots. Apologies for repeating a couple of issues that have already been mentioned, but I wrote this whilst sat on a plane before reading the comments in the thread above.

    Front of the Loco:
    1. Horn grille missing
    2. Window screws possibly missing (hard to tell from the photo?)
    3. Seam is a bit too narrow
    4. Grab-rail has rounded corners, not right-angled
    5. It looks like these etched parts haven’t had their sides folded? Could this be just down to the way that the EP has been put together?
    6. Not sure what these pipes are doing here? There should be 4 vertical holes.
    7. What are the four holes on the skirt doing there?
    8. Missing skirt lugs/eyes
    9. Missing skirt steps

    Three-quarter's view:
    1. Grille needs to sit flush with the roof (EP assembly issue?)
    2. It’s hard to tell because the door has been ‘posed’ open, but it looks like the door is not flush with the side.
    3. The 3 black stanchions have a gap at the bottom, they should run all the way to the bottom of the frame.
    4. This panel seems a bit too indented
    5. The grilles show only 14 rather than 16 ribs
    6. The gap between this part and the upper body shouldn’t be there (EP assembly issue?)
    7. The steps don’t appear to be aligned with the door? Is the bogie positioned too far forwards?
    8. Extra damper shouldn’t be there for 59/1.
    9. Fuel pipe should be angled inwards not outwards (EP assembly issue?)
    10. The prominent pipes that wrap around the lower frame missing.
    11. Grab rails missing
    12. The whole centre section of the body is a removable cowling (there are photos on the web showing this removed). As such, it sits a bit proud of the rest of the body. This is not just a simple seam line as depicted.

    Personal key features:
    1. Must take kadee (ideally in a NEM pocket) in a hole through the skirt.
    2. Switchable rear lights

    If you could post some higher resolution photos we (collectively) might be able to comment further.

    Kind regards,

    Guy

    Leave a comment:


  • JeremiahBunyan
    replied
    Originally posted by 159220 View Post

    59 Front.jpg:

    1. WiPac lighting pods have curved corners. (Perhaps it is the low res photo of the 1st EP?)


    I look forward to further progress.
    Thanks for sharing.
    Hi mate...It does have rounded corners!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1.jpg
Views:	359
Size:	19.1 KB
ID:	2081

    Leave a comment:


  • 159220
    replied
    Thank you for sharing, I have been looking forward to seeing them and I very much like what I see. Of course compliments are often brief, constructive feedback often long.

    Is it a 1st EP or 1st Shot? I do not know does this matter in terms of the steel being stiffened and the tooling set?

    Captures a 59/1 very well generally. It looks like a 59/1, it feels like a 59/1 and if I stare enough I can imagine her in the very suiting Hanson livery.

    Now forgive me if I have missed details, or have seen something not there. Higher res photos shall like answer a few things.

    Two things which strike me the most, and said already is the chassis does not hide enough into the body and the bogies are not ‘balky’ enough. I know we discussed the latter before over the CAD images and no doubt it can be ratified. Along with the extra added details which shall be forthcoming with later samples.

    Looks as you have an ideal modellers job Andy, a bag full of bits on the last photo to glue into a wonderful 59/0 and 59/2. Really does bring back to the front of the mind just how much time goes into building a model from hundreds of parts (and likely explains the labour costs!).

    If I may, I have made a few comparison photos to aid us (I am PM additional/higher res if useful). Wonderful that the Digest allows us the customers to contribute to the development and refinement of the models we buy.

    (I might of got carried away ..... I hope it helps!)

    59.jpg:

    1. I agree with other points, the bodies do seem to sit up into the model. Of course, this is 1st EP (or even 1st Shot which is hand built) and I am sure they shall be level.
    2. I have to agree, I hope for the production models these grills shall be etched. I know it adds an additional cost making etches. But rather pay for it, than not have. Shall we all discuss? Price vs detail?
    3. Body to chassis supports, is this what the three black ones are…otherwise missing on left from right side of model. Piping appears to run over the supports on the loco.
    4. Now this is a sad one I know, life is more important than counting the details. I am embarrassed I counted this…but….the model has 19 nibs verses 18 of the prototype. From the fairly low res photo, it appears the upper rib is the extra one - with the ribs terminating before the door height on the prototype? Now I know what I have to do, go count the class 66!
    5. (Highlighted area) The chassis appears to not have enough depth to it when compared to the prototype, could this just be lighting or lack of black paint?
    6. Down chassis support missing on prototype.
    7. Window has screw holes on prototype and a frame and gap between fixed and opening windows. Perhaps etched frames for the forward window might suit?
    8. Piping appears rather predominately on the prototype here.
    9. Bogies do not have enough depth. This has been pointed out here and before on the CADs. (https://digest.dapol.co.uk/forum/mai...?p=458#post458) It does not appear to be their size but their bulk/width outwards. They appear to dominate more on the prototype and have greater width out of the body/chassis?
    10. Piping should terminate further along to position on arrow?
    11. Piping appears rather predominately on the prototype here.

    Perhaps the solution is bigger bogie frames, bigger wheels, equaling higher ride profile by around a millimetre.

    59 Front.jpg:

    1. WiPac lighting pods have curved corners. (Perhaps it is the low res photo of the 1st EP?)
    2. Windows seem a bit on the small size. There is a smaller gap between windows and loco sides than on the 1st EP. Windows maybe 0.5 mm extra on X & Y axis?
    3. I would imagine an etch grill is covering the horns?
    4. The frames seem undersized and I do not see the screw holes. Perhaps an etched window frame might work better? I know etch adds price, but would look superb.
    5. Coupling depression appears to be too rectangular.
    6. Plates above buffers are too low. There is a clear difference between loco and 1st EP

    ? A thought to a solution for the discussion on the shield not being NEM coupling friendly. I note discussion on the MM 201 or HB 60 (or even BB 70) and I did some research on those solutions but I do not think they would be an ideal solution as the shielding has far more depth on these prototypes and thus it can be modeled? The shields on the 59/66 are straight long metal, thus model form I would imagine (if not detachable) are fairly fragile? Perhaps a solution would be to simply have a rectangle hole. TBH not a massive concern for me. But thought to offer a solution to which I hope we can all discuss.

    590.jpg (certainly looks like a 1st shot over a 1st EP):

    1. Comment made earlier, the lighting holds do seem a little oversized. Though I am sure once the wholes contain light bulbs it might remove this effect.
    2. As with the 59/1, the windows seem a bit on the small size, by less and a millimetre all around. Others agree?
    3. Good to see the window screw wholes. Frame, as with the 59/1 could be larger. Have you considered making it etched?

    Plates above buffers and central couple depression seem right over the 59/1.

    Anyway, all points are fairly minor, part from the bogies in my mind. We have a superb looking 59 here and I look forward to Hanson, AI and DBS liveries in due course. (and some wagons to haul! I have been informed the new Mendip Rail/VJG open boxes shall be the same design of JNAs as discussed over on the wagon section….)

    Utterly understand that the 1st Shot/EP do not follow the CAD to the T and this is why we are all here to discuss and identify.

    I look forward to further progress.
    Thanks for sharing.

    Leave a comment:


  • YesTor
    replied
    On a positive note - rotating axle-boxes = excellent

    Leave a comment:


  • YesTor
    replied
    Originally posted by JeremiahBunyan

    Hi YesTor,

    Found this picture and many more online. Seems to sit accurately in terms ride height on it's bogies. (Unless I've misunderstood your post)
    http://www.kentrail.org.uk/Class%2059%20Drax.jpg
    http://www.traintesting.com/images/5...2019-10-06.jpg
    http://images.on-this.website/21199_...6e16d366b1.jpg

    Looking at this photograph https://digest.dapol.co.uk/filedata/fetch?photoid=2048 and it clearly appears as though the left side is definitely not level. Okay, I understand that the model is viewed at an angle and also the front bogie is turned inward slightly, but nevertheless, the axle closest to the bufferbeam (on both ends in fact) appears to sit closer to the underframe than any of the other axles, which to my eye suggests that this suffers from exactly the same issue as almost every Bachmann 66 I have purchased, whereby the model appears to be slumped forward on its bogies and generally makes the model sit too low overall.

    I would also reiterate the comments of LaGrange in that the bogies generally do not appear heavy/robust enough in appearance. So it might even be possible that the (supposed) height issue is a result of seemingly weak-looking bogies? As LaGrange also mentioned above, looking at the Lima 59 bogies... http://s1077.photobucket.com/user/st..._0674.jpg.html and while they lack fine detail, I would say where they do win is in their heavyweight/robust/chunkier appearance.

    Add to this the missing front cowling/snowplough and again, from the above EP photo alone, this really adds to the effect of a weak-looking front end and slumping appearance. In layman's terms, it just ain't right.
    Last edited by YesTor; 30 July 2016, 15:38.

    Leave a comment:


  • YesTor
    replied
    Originally posted by LaGrange View Post
    Bogies - They dont look 'heavy' enough, EMD bogies are massively over-engineered - dare I say it, look at the Lima 59 bogies to compare.
    Agreed. While the Lima bogies lack fine detail they do in fact capture the sheer bulk/weight rather well.

    Originally posted by LaGrange View Post
    Underframe - the underframe on these is an 'exoskeleton' ie a lot of the cables etc are visible - id have thought that all the cables would be moulded separately but only some of them are. Be worth the effort to have separate detail for the whole length.
    Agreed totally. Another major downfall of the Bachmann 66, and another reason why I've now stopped buying any more. The external cabling/wiring is a major feature of the prototype, and while I can see the potential complexity in modelling this feature, as LaGrang states it really would make this a first class effort if it could be achieved.

    Originally posted by LaGrange View Post
    Re front skirts with cut-outs for the couplings, look at the Murphy Models 201 class, needs the same approach
    Agreed. Additionally, look at the Hornby Class 60 - okay different prototype but same effect achieved by producing two separate cowlings - one that enables plugging couplings into the NEM socket and one that doesn't (for the perfect display model).

    Originally posted by LaGrange View Post
    Needs etched grilles too, they look great on the Dapol 73 so keep it going!
    Agreed. Again look at Hornby's Class 60 and its undeniable just how much this adds to the overall look; and again a distinctive feature of the 59 (and the 66 - which Bachmann also fail to reproduce), so if anything like that can be achieved it would really make a difference.

    Last edited by YesTor; 30 July 2016, 15:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaGrange
    replied
    A few observations. I know this is the 1st sample and changes can be done.

    The 59/0 cab - I take it this is for 59003 in its current GBRF guise with its bigger LED marker lights. Looks good

    Bogies - They dont look 'heavy' enough, EMD bogies are massively over-engineered - dare I say it, look at the Lima 59 bogies to compare

    Underframe - the underframe on these is an 'exoskeleton' ie a lot of the cables etc are visible - id have thought that all the cables would be moulded separately but only some of them are. Be worth the effort to have separate detail for the whole length.

    Needs etched grilles too, they look great on the Dapol 73 so keep it going!

    Re front skirts with cut-outs for the couplings, look at the Murphy Models 201 class, needs the same approach

    Leave a comment:


  • Joel Dapol
    commented on 's reply
    We much appreciate your appraisal and will look at the points outlined in detail. This is in fact an advanced first shot, so plenty of opportunity to fine tune and as such will not have all the final detail included. However, the purpose of this forum is to gain and seek opinions on the models we intend to produce and as such any time taken to offer a critique is very much welcomed. Let's aim to make this the best model we can make.

  • JeremiahBunyan
    commented on 's reply
    Hi YesTor,

    Found this picture and many more online. Seems to sit accurately in terms ride height on it's bogies. (Unless I've misunderstood your post)
    http://www.kentrail.org.uk/Class%2059%20Drax.jpg
    http://www.traintesting.com/images/5...2019-10-06.jpg
    http://images.on-this.website/21199_...6e16d366b1.jpg

    And in terms of handrails on the solebar, maybe Andy can confirm if they're there or not i.e. it may of may not have been fitted.

  • JeremiahBunyan
    replied
    Hello Andy,

    It seems my gut feelings were right. And I'm so please to see these EP samples. Now all I have to see is the livery samples and I can decide which one to buy (i.e I'm more of a collector than modeler). The model looks superb!!! I do think there can be two improvements made and I've listed them below:-
    • I also think the model will benefit from etched grilles, but not too fussy.
    • I think there should be another cow catcher/snow plough with a slot for running with a coupling. But again not fussy and I'd be happy doing some modelling.
    All in all, it's an excellent model and I'd surely be getting one for the collection.

    I'll probably buy a Class 59 most similar to a Class 66 in my eyes and change the bogies (as I don't think the Bachmann Class 66 is upto par). And I must also point out, I think the wipers have been executed exceptionally well.
    Last edited by JeremiahBunyan; 30 July 2016, 06:16.

    Leave a comment:


  • YesTor
    replied
    Hmmm, looks quite nice, although a couple of things leap out:
    1. It seems to suffer from the same issue as Bachmann's 66 in that the loco appears to slump forward and sit far too low on its bogies.

    2. I was rather hoping that Dapol would figure out a way of re-arranging the front end so that the cowling did not have to be removed completely in order to fit tension lock/Kadee style couplings. Instead they've simply opted for the same arrangement as Bachmann's 66. To my eye a 59 or 66 without that front cowling just doesn't look like a 59/66. Hugely disappointing.

    3. Some of the underframe piping and add-ons appear a bit 'chunky', particularly around the fuel tank area and on the bogies.

    4. Moulded bodyside grilles - would have been nice to be able to achieve that 'see through' effect, similar to Hornby's Class 60.

    5. Lack of handrails on the solebar just below cab doors.
    Regards
    Last edited by YesTor; 30 July 2016, 03:29.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy Dapol
    started a topic OO Class 59 E.P.

    OO Class 59 E.P.

    1st view of the E.P. this is a prototype assembly of the /1 version of this model. The photos show the general view of the model, including the rotating axle stubs and 'posable' cab doors. Inside there is room for a Bass Reflex speaker, sound decoder and our new 'drop-in' smoke generator.
    As you may expect with a sneak-peek this early in production, there are a number of tweaks required (for example no 'turn-ups' on the over buffer steps, and one view doesn't have the distinctive front 'air dam' fitted (this is a clip fit to either end, but will not permit use of the NEM coupling). I'm sure collectively you will spot the rest and I'm looking froward to your comments.

    I am working my way through the remainder of the supplied 1st shots for the remaining variations and will update again in a few weeks time.
Working...
X