Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • IanS
    commented on 's reply
    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
    commented on 's reply
    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.

  • Richard Dapol
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Badger
    replied
    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.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • IanS
    commented on 's reply
    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.

  • tallboy53
    replied
    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?????

    Leave a comment:


  • Woody
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • IanS
    commented on 's reply
    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
    replied

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Miss Prism
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • IanS
    commented on 's reply
    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.

  • Gronk
    commented on 's reply
    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.

  • Miss Prism
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard Dapol
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • IanS
    commented on 's reply
    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.
Working...
X