Announcing our Collett 14xx / 48xx / 58xx model

[Andy Dapol]

Announced at the Telford O Gauge Guild exhibition, and currently about to go into tooling we expect this model to be available by September 2018.

The 14XX was a GWR tank locomotive designed for branch line passenger and freight work. Although the design is attributed to Collett, much of the actual locomotive was derived from the earlier 19th century George Armstrong designed 517 Class. Entering service in 1932, in all 75 were built and ran well into the 1960s with 4 surviving into preservation.
An autocoach was often combined with a 14XX on many branch line operations. The driving cab on the autocoach meant that the locomotive could be controlled from there and negated the requirement to run the locomotive round at the end of the journey. This format was known as a push-pull train.

20 locomotives built concurrently with the 48xx engines were not fitted with auto train control connections. These 58xx class engines were intended for branch lines where auto working was not in use and goods train service. 58s were regularly seen hauling the last of the 4 wheel coaches and later bogie non-corridor coaches, often with just one brake composite being sufficient for the passengers.

• Die-cast running plate
• Fully compensated die-cast chassis
• Die-cast and profiled wheels
• High level of separately applied detail
• Flickering fire light effect
• Removable cab roof for ease of posing your locomotive crew
• Sprung metal buffers and articulated screw coupling
• Dapols proven motor and gearbox offering exceptional smooth performance and slow running capabilities
• DCC Ready, incorporating Dapols new 'Quick-fit' DCC and speaker design
• Un-numbered versions of each livery will be available so that you can model your local locomotive

[Southernlad86]

Good news indeed looks like another pre order is Due :-D

[Miss Prism]

I understand the renderings shown on RMweb a week or so ago may have been somewhat premature, and that the CADs are still in a state of development. Nevertheless, here are some comments.

Incorrect double washout plugs are shown on the rear of the boiler.



The RMweb rendering seemed to show the top feed has a taper in side elevation. Although 14xx top feeds do have a very slight release angle in side elevation, it is not a significant angle (unlike a Pannier top feed). It is perhaps 1 or 2 degrees (which is what would be required as a release angle from a model's tooling anyway).









The seam joint on the bunker side of the CAD rendering looked crude and unprototypical. It is barely discernible on the prototype.




It was not possible to see the bufferbeam detail on the CAD rendering, but many of the fixings on the bufferbeams of the real thing are chunky hex boltheads (1" a/f??), and not snaphead rivets (as are shown in all other 14xx RTR models). These bolts were present on original build, and are not a 'preservation mod', although Didcot's 4866 does have a few more of them than the original locos did.




Regarding the removable roof feature, I would have thought a better strategy would be to have the footplate floor as part of the chassis, thus locomotive crew could be placed on that. The prototype roof is nicely rounded. Just a personal view.

[JeremiahBunyan]

PM your feedback to Andy Dapol and/or Richard Dapol so that you'll know for sure that they have seen it and will act upon the same. With current model shows going on I think they'll be busy and they can overlook certain posts by mistake. So it's best to PM them too.

[Richard Dapol]

Hi MP. Thank you for your observations regarding early drawings of this upcoming model. The washout plugs will be corrected as the join in the bunker sheeting will be redefined as a fine line. Also the top feed casing drat angle will be reduced to 1.5 degrees, really the minimum for safe removal from the mould.
The cab floor is cast with the footplate, however the roof, which is held on by two small magnets, is a simple process to remove without taking anything apart. Towards the end of the month I hope to be able to post better drawings, but in the meantime your input is much appreciated.
Regards, Richard

[Miss Prism]

On further examining the bunker sheeting on the 14xx, and the equivalent on Panniers, there is in fact no join at all - it's just a double line of rivets.

[Richard Dapol]

Hi MP, I am attaching part of the 1932 Swindon General arrangement drawing of the bunker, where supports for the sheeting are clearly shown. The separate sheets are then riveted to these supports. Also a picture of the bunker of preserved 1450, where separate sheets can be seen riveted to the internal supports, however I notice this small gap between the bunker side sheets on some preserved examples have been filled in, so would you please post a picture where you are stating no gap is visible.
Thank you for your comment, we intend to produce highly detailed 48xx/58xx models
Kind Regards,
Richard

[IanS]

Having built a couple of 1:1 scale GWR bunkers...
The bunkers are split into several sheets as it would be impossible to produce the complex curves from one sheet.

The key is the corner which is a pressing incorporating the side to back curve, outward curve of the bunker rear and 'straightening-up' curve for the extended top.
This pressed component therefore includes all the complex curves of the corner in a L shaped unit with the longer leg of the L along the side to accommodate the different top and bottom lengths.
Between the two corners straightforward sheeting can be fitted across the back of the bunker, usually with 3 stiffening ribs (L or T section) to stop the coal from bending the sheet.

Therefore there is always a vertical joint between the inner side part of the corner pressing and the plain sheet towards the cab.
There is also always a joint line aligned with the bottom of the corner pressings from the vertical joint on one side across the back of the bunker to the vertical joint on the side on the other side.
The back sheets are also usually split into several sheets to make the sheets easier to form (locos with water tanks under the bunkers may vary). Usually the bottom is split into 2 sheets, each with one side curve and jointed in the centre (Central stiffener is T section). The Upper sheet has the horizontal curves and reaches from the bottom of the outward curve to the top of the bunker. This avoids needing to accurately form multiple curves in one very large sheet of metal.

Note that a well built bunker (and even more important for tanks) will have joints tightly closed up and filled with paint. The joint line may not be evident in photographs unless the light picks up the indentation of the joint.

Beware of looking at preserved locomotives!
When side tanks and bunkers are replaced these are usually fabricated by welding the joints to make a stronger unit with fasteners (rivets of bolts) just attaching the stiffeners, or may be entirely cosmetic. Welded joints will tend to disappear even more easily if welded, and ground down flush before painting.
However the railways did not put rivets in for fun, if there's a double row it almost certainly a butt-joint between two plates, even if it's not there now.

Ian S.

[Richard Dapol]

Hi Ian,
Thank you very much for your concise and very descriptive construction of GWR locomotive bunkers, your involvement with the prototype tells the complete story of these complicated shapes. We at Dapol will produce an authentic and highly detailed series of models of both the auto-fitted 48xx and 58xx classes, making the joint line between sheets as a fine line
Kind Regards,
Richard

[Miss Prism]

Hi Richard

I got a message today in my inbox that something had been posted here, so I have done a quickie page of some GWR tank engine bunker seams. Most of these are preserved examples, where, as one might expect, a bit more TLC has been applied (grinding, filler and paint etc) to the sheet joints, but some of the pics are in pre-preserved times. Many of these pics are not 48xx/14xx, but the general principle applies. (Note that Didcot's rivets on 1466 are somewhat larger than standard.) If I find some better pics in GWR times, I will add them.

My point is, in clarifying my rather misleading "no joint at all", is that the joints, when translated down to 7mm, would, in effect, be almost indiscernible.

http://www.gwr.org.uk/bunker-seams.html

regards

P.S. Excellent GA extract. Thanks.

[Gronk]

I understand what you are getting at MP but the join is visible as described. I have checked my more expensive 7mm version of the 14xx from another manufacturer and the join is just visible as a fine line (as described by Richard) between the two rows of rivets. If the fine line was missing it would not right from my point of view. Let's hope Dapol can produce a similar fine line as it sounds as though we are going to get a a very nice model which will cost much less than I had to pay for mine, which is very good news.

[IanS]

You are quite correct about the scale width of the joint, we have perhaps misunderstood your original intent when starting the discussion.

Scaling down does inevitably result in dimensions tending towards zero. To put it into perspective, the thinnest readily available plasticard is 10 thou, 0.25mm, which even in O is about 7/16th, a shade under half an inch. Half an inch is a hefty thickness of steel, the bed angles around the bottom of the tanks and bunker come close at around 3/8in, but the footplate edge is at most 1/4in, about 6 thou. and 1/8th (3 thou) would do the job.
Many of us can imagine the shouting and screaming which will occur if the edge of the 'footplate overhang' was omitted on the grounds that it scales out to nothing...
Hence overscale panel lines feature all over models, representing joints which you can just about click a fingernail over. The fuel certainly wouldn't stay in the tanks of many model aeroplanes, it would be far too busy pouring down the panel troughs!

Rivets and the methods of driving them have changed over the years. The modern rivet has a full hemisphere head, which I rather suspect is already larger (taller) than 1930s rivet heads. The rivet is also now driven with a hydraulic riveting machine which presses evenly over the spherical shape and forms the 'inside' head from the hot metal like a mould.
Prior to this rivets were driven by percussive means with hand or air hammers. Even using shaped dollys these tend to flatten the head of the rivet as it is expanded and domed over on the inside.
Hence modern rivets used in restoration will end up appearing larger, being taller and more domed, than would have been achieved in the 30s unless some action is used to flatten them a bit.

Ian S.

[Miss Prism]

I understand the need for compromise on thicknesses of footplate edges, splasher sides and tops, steps etc, especially for plastic. But to infer from such areas of accepted compromise that seam joints should be deliberately exaggerated seems a bizarre leap of logic. Such logic would demand incorrectly-sized chimneys and domes for example - which is clearly silly.

The unfortunate context of these kinds of debate is the endemic, or at least growing, expectation for overscale 'detail'. The unqualified and persistent clamour for 'compromise' needs to take a hard look at itself - there is a danger of ceasing to be able to distinguish what needs compromise (on legitimate issues of prototype feature variation, material strength, tool architecture and release angle, or wheelset sideplay, etc etc), and what does not. This culture stems from ignorance, and it is time to redress that perception. Seam joints do not fall into the 'compromise-necessary' category in my opinion. Ian S has now introduced rivet size and shape into this mix. I do understand why modern rivets are slightly more hemi-spherical than some older ones, but I take the view that where there is an opportunity, as there is here, to make a reasonable attempt at historical authenticity, then it should be taken.

I accept our individual expectations of what constitutes 'reasonable' vary widely of course, and I admit I am playing hardball and being provocative in this discussion.

I have included a picture of 4805, straight out of the Swindon shops in 1932, on http://www.gwr.org.uk/bunker-seams.html

[IanS]

I wouldn't disagree with the idea that seam joint lines should disappear, especially as a newly painted or well cleaned locomotive (ie no dirt in the joint) would need to be viewed very close up to see the joint.
However modellers in all genres are renown for their attention to this kind of detail, cf the 1/72 aircraft modellers obsession with 'fine panel lines'.

I'm sure Dapol can foresee the howls of protest and vociferous demands that no-one buy a Dapol model ever again if the joint line was omitted.
The screams of horror are bad enough when the manufacturer gets it right, but as the 'perceived wisdom' is factually incorrect quite obviously the manufacturer and the prototype must be wrong! (This has happened.)

The customer in the end will decide and if the customer suggests that the panel lines are important then the customer isn't going to buy the model without them.

Re Rivets
I did not intend to cause offence and apologise for any which may have been caused.
I was simply trying to explain in a way which could be followed by those who would not unreasonably consider a rivet to be a rivet that a modern 21st century rivet, as will be seen on an operating preserved locomotive, may be a rather different shape to the original early/mid 20th century rivet it replaced and why.

We may be straying even farther from the original point, but...
While the shape of the rivet may not be of huge import it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that modellers might make a judgement based on a comparing models with preserved locos.
It is notable that several model manufacturers look at preserved locomotives when researching models and take no account of the changes made in the possibly over 100 years since the prototype was built, even in cases where the changes made during the service life or restoration of the individual locomotive they have looked at are well documented.
Should we expect that modellers now and in the future will automatically understand that the real thing they see is not quite the same as it was in the 1930s (and hopefully depicted by the 1930s era model they are holding) without recording and explaining what we know now?

Again, I apologise for any offence caused.
I do not know your individual technical experience / background, I am trying to explain in terms which might be understood by those who have no engineering/railway/preservation background and accept I may not always be successful in this...

[Gronk]

I'm afraid "Historically authenticity" is only relative to the eye of the beholder and facts availble at the time of observation, therefore authenticity is perceived by people in many ways and at different times depending on what you see or don't see. Relative to my point of view I can also see some other differences and ommisions you have not mentioned yet but they should not detract from the final version. After all, the basic cad drawing will not show everything in great detail so we will have to wait to see what's produced. I'm sure it will please the vast majority and will sell 'well warts and all', be a very accurate and appealing model for the money. However its good you are trying to raise standards but sadly compromises are a fact of business and manufacturing life.

[Woody]

idea for a future run. 1438 and 1458 were long time residents at Stourbridge Junction. at some time in the late 50s they were transferred to Oswestry or Wrexham, well it's that area they ended up. only problem is that neither had top feed

[tallboy53]

As I recall, the top feed was only fitted to the class after its renumbering to the 14XX series. The 48's being produced should therefore not have the top feed fitted. Too much to hope that this will be reproduced on the models I guess?????

[IanS]

First of all remember that the boilers have the top feed and these were switched around between locomotives.

I can't comment on when the first top feed boilers were added to the pool for the 48/58xx class, the 'best guess' I've found is 'in the 1940s'. It is possible these were for the last batch of 48xx (4860-4874) in 1936, though latterly there were obviously many more boilers with top feeds than this accounts for. It is also worth noting that the 517 class boilers could be fitted to the 48xx, so it is possibly more likely that the top feeds appear when converted 517 boilers were replaced, or added as boilers needed major overhauls after 7 to 10 years service, both possibilities would again put the dates in the 1940 period.

I believe it is safe to say that in the early years of 48xx class (1930s) the (majority at least) of the 48/58xx locomotives did not have top feed boilers.
By the time of the renumbering to the 14xx series it is probable that some top feed boilers were in service, but might well have been rare before the renumbering. Like the following post WW2 and BR period reference to dated photographs would be needed.

So far as I am aware from Dapols' original product announcement the model will be produced in both with and without top feed options as appropriate to the locomotive and livery.

[Badger]

Recently I received an offer through Dapol to purchase a 14xx of which I've been looking forward to. The offer states the GWR logo painted out, which in my mind looks terrible.
When are we going to see a Brunswick green 14xx to run with the GWR auto coach that is already in existence? Alternatively a black lined out GW engine?

The current offer is OK for those who are willing to modify their purchases but for me when I but something I expect it to be complete.

So come on Dapol, let's have the loco that everyone wants in the right colours complete with company ownership on the tanks.

[Richard Dapol]

Hi Badger, Thank you for your interest in our forthcoming 48xx/58xx locomotives.
We are manufacturing a special run of 1401 as running in the film 'The Titfield Thunderbolt', where the G W R letters were painted over. Also we are producing two models in lined B.R. green, one early crest and one late crest. We shall consider lined B R Black on a subsequent run.
We hope to have decorated samples early next month, however I have attached a taster of the first EP on my garden railway, where the model handled a 'B' set with ease on 4'-0" curves and up gradients. Obviously being an EP some details are not fitted correctly or missing.
Regards,
Richard

[Badger]

Is there any future plans for GWR green 14xx? I've been promised an GWR autocoach but its no good without a GWR coloured loco.

[IanS]

The GWR mid-chrome green livery models are 7S-006-001 (lettered Great Western) 7S-006-002 (1934 shirtbutton monogram) and 7S-006-020 (post WW2 lettered GWR)
Ian S.

[Badger]

I may have missed it, Has the loco been launched yet & if so where's my pre-order?

[Neil Dapol]

They should arrive with us some time this week and will be going out to stockists shortly afterwards.

[IanS]

The 48xx/58xx/14xx locos are arriving with retailers now.
Ian @ antics.

[Longbow]

Hi Dapol - I and several others have experienced damage in transit to this model as discussed in the link below. The model is attached to the packaging via the front axle keeper plate, and this part is secured by two flimsy mounting screws which can tear loose under the stress of transit. Is it possible please to get a replacement keeper plate and longer screws to secure it?

[Joel Dapol]

Hello and my apologies about the problems you have experienced with the 14xx. Choosing packaging is always a problem with detailed and heavy models so it it is important we receive feedback and can find methods to improve. We have had relatively few complaints so far and most products seem to have arrived at our stockists intact and in good condition. However, we will give feedback to the factory on how this can be improved on future runs. We have also asked for longer screws that may provide some additional support, however, we do not have these in stock currently. perhaps you can email [email protected] with your details and we can send these when they become available?