Dapol OO Gauge GWR Large Prairie & GWR Mogul.

[Peterm]

I'm the same with Heljan, although not nearly as much money spent. I think it was a Western Cl 52 that I have that started grinding away. When I took it apart the worm gear (not the worm) was offset at both ends and worn on one side. I corrected it by carefully taking down the boss on one side and then shimming. All this because Heljan had no interest in supplying spares.
Did you sound decoder survive the shorting?

[boxbrownie]

Pete, I am not sure it has yet......it was such a farce I packed the Railcar in its box as I was due for a knee replacement (now done and recovering) so I have not even bothered going into the layout room yet......well stairs without bannisters to it put me off but I should really dig the decoder out and send it off to Zimo and get it checked, I fear it may have been damaged as even with the wires correctly connected and insulated the sound output was badly distorted.

It was not so much the one single issue with the wiring that put me off Dapol completely as the after sales service I got from them, as if I knew absolutely nothing about what I was doing including an email including quite a condescending excuse that I might be using the wrong controller, which in fact was odd as I told the guy concerned which controller (ECoS) I was using in the first instance, it was as if “well we looked at it trice and it worked so you must just be doing something wrong so bog off!”

No it was the aftersales that has stopped me ever buying anything else from them, shame as the stuff I have already had is good.

But I prefer principal over profit.......

[Bigmet]

Dealers putting it out that the Churchward mogul is expected this month...

It's definitely not landed yet, container ship still on the hoggin! Likely be on retailer's shelves toward the end of the month, given the time to land, clear, and move the goods to Dapol for retailer distribution. I remain curious to see what it is like, as the SECR D class they have underway for Rails is a definite temptation, if I am not overwhelmed by LNER and BR(ER) releases. (There are potentially 8 loco models that suit my specific layout scenario slated to arrive in 2021, and only the Oxford N7 in the economy bracket.)

[Bigmet]

I see the Churchward mogul from Dapol is very definitely available and is meeting with varying degrees of purchaser approval. Very little comment about the new loco to tender coupling which does the full job of mechanical linkage and electrical connections. That might be good news, as in 'trouble free'; but what I want to know is does it space loco and tender at scale separation, and if not can its positioning be modified to do so? (The SECR D class that Dapol have been commissioned to produce is announced as having this fitting - that's the reason for my interest in this device.) Anyone here going to bag a mogul?

[UrbanHermit]

Mine arrived this morning, but I haven't had much time to play with it. Looks pretty good to me, and runs like a sewing machine straight out of the box. As for the coupling, well, it's close but probably not quite as close as you'd like, since the model is supposed to be able to go round second radius curves. The fallplate does overlap the tender front, but only just. I'm afraid I can't comment on the possibility of altering it, since I have no intention of doing so - I have some second radius curves on my layout, though I haven't tried the model on those yet.

[Bigmet]

...As for the coupling, well, it's close but probably not quite as close as you'd like, since the model is supposed to be able to go round second radius curves. The fallplate does overlap the tender front, but only just. I'm afraid I can't comment on the possibility of altering it, since I have no intention of doing so - I have some second radius curves on my layout, though I haven't tried the model on those yet.

Thanks for checking that out. Sounds like Dapol have dared to go reasonably close if the fall plate is a scale item, since it rests on the tender step.

(In general the RTR OO we get is very conservative in this respect. A scale model of a loco as large as the 9F can be close coupled to the tender such that the cab floor extension just reaches the tender step, and the loco and tender will still go around second radius. For any wanting to try it on their Bachmann 9F, either drill another hole in the drawbar, or make a new short one, and file back the intermediate buffer mouldings to about a third their original overall length to prevent them fouling on the loco rear. Way more complicated to achieve on the Hornby version as the front frame of the tender is over scale length by near 5mm, the underframe has to be chopped behind the front steps and reassembled to shorten.)

[UrbanHermit]

One picture is worth a thousand words, they say...

Watching the loco on a second radius curve, it kooks like they could have got away with coupling the tender a little more closely. I can't see any easy way of adjusting it, though I'm no expert at such things. The pivots/attachments are hidden inside the model.

[Bigmet]

...Watching the loco on a second radius curve, it kooks like they could have got away with coupling the tender a little more closely. I can't see any easy way of adjusting it, though I'm no expert at such things. The pivots/attachments are hidden inside the model.

Inevitably it will be conservative in this respect. The RTR OO manufacturers may want to suggest that R2 is required, but some of their customers will be using R1, and possibly not that tidily laid. So if the product will 'stretch' to tolerating that while still looking good, that's a win.

I am a little obsessive about closing up loco and tender to scale separation; because it does ice the cake on any good model. It doesn't require any great expertise. Two holes in a short strip of metal and a couple of small self tappers is my principal skill in this field.

[UrbanHermit]

Not so simple on this model, because the coupling incorporates the electrical connections. It doesn't matter to me, because (as I've said) I'm not going to alter it. I was thinking about you and your potential SECR D.

Incidentally... One man's meat and all that, but my personal nomination for the most elegant 4-4-0 is for the original unrebuilt Johnson engines on the Midland. I might have said the GWR Armstrong class if only they'd had flush-top fireboxes, Pity they didn't go as well as they looked. Since they were basically 4-4-0 versions of the famous Dean 4-2-2s I've always wondered why they were apparently such inferior performers.

[Bigmet]

Not so simple on this model, because the coupling incorporates the electrical connections. It doesn't matter to me, because (as I've said) I'm not going to alter it. I was thinking about you and your potential SECR D...

That falls under 'have soldering iron, will rewire'.

I did a count some years past for data to use in a discussion on manufacturer aptitude in loco wiring and DCC decoder socket positioning. It was a neat two thirds of the then 60 RTR locos I was operating that were rewired or had the decoder socket positions altered or the socket removed and decoder hardwired; so this is nothing new.

...I might have said the GWR Armstrong class if only they'd had flush-top fireboxes, Pity they didn't go as well as they looked. Since they were basically 4-4-0 versions of the famous Dean 4-2-2s I've always wondered why they were apparently such inferior performers.

There are two potential major effects to the power production elements of the loco directly arising from having smaller four coupled driving wheels than the single's big wheelset.

First of these - and a very common problem - is the arrangement of the ashpan and dampers which affects the air supply to the grate. Plenty of space for this above a smaller diameter trailing wheelset, far more constrained when positioned between two driving axles. Any number of loco designs suffered from insufficient air supply to the grate, some at all times, others as the ash built up and caused obstruction.

Second is the higher rate the engine has to work at for the same track speed. If the valve events at speed were at or near the limit at maximum speed with the single, then the smaller wheeled four coupled would suffer, because for the same speed a greater stroke rate is required.

The reason for going four coupled needs to be considered too: probably for more reliable traction for increasingly heavy trainloads. Even if the power output capability was essentially the same as that of the single, if the loads were heavier the relative performance of the four coupled would suffer by comparison.

And then there's 'unintended consequences'. Any engineering team will make 'improvements' when an existing design is revisited or significantly modified. The history of steam traction development is rich with examples of improvements which were anything but...

[UrbanHermit]

Very interesting exposition, Bigmet, and all good points. My money's on the ashpan. The Armstrongs had 7' drivers as opposed to the 7' 8" of the singles, so the difference was less than 10%, but I wouldn't mind betting that led to the boiler being pitched a few inches lower (they always liked to pitch it as low as possible in those days), thus further restricting the ashpan.

Some of the early Saints ran for a while as atlantics, and nobody could understand why they didn't steam so well as the 4-6-0s until the shedmaster at Westbourne Park, one W Stanier, pointed out to Churchward that the atlantics' flat-bottomed ashpans had only two dampers while the 4-6-0s' ashpans had an extra pair either side of the hump to clear the rear axle, leading to the grates being starved of air. 'Dammit Stanier, I believe you're right,' was Churchward's answer - and he was.

[UrbanHermit]

Back on topic, I had a quick shufti the other day at the RMWeb thread on the Dapol mogul – and rather wished I hadn't. It turns out that Dapol have slipped up on one particular variant, and that's exactly the one I have, 6385 in shirtbutton livery. Apparently this locomotive received outside steam pipes in 1932, two years before the shirtbutton came in, and the model doesn't have them. I'm not quite nerdy enough to have known this, nor would I have been eager enough to fault my new model by checking up on it for myself, so if I hadn't looked at that thread I would have remained in blissful ignorance.

This is a rather more conspicuous fault than one or two rivets too few or too many. I'm not confident enough of my skill to try and rectify it myself, either by adding pipes or changing the number, not on a brand-new model. I expect I'll learn to live with it, but those of you who do want every detail correct might want to avoid this version.

[Mike Parkes]

This is a rather more conspicuous fault than one or two rivets too few or too many. I'm not confident enough of my skill to try and rectify it myself, either by adding pipes or changing the number, not on a brand-new model. I expect I'll learn to live with it, but those of you who do want every detail correct might want to avoid this version.

Simple solution is to renumber it to an appropriate loco for that condition - very easy with BR(WR) locos due to the use of numberplates throughout but a bit more difficult with GWR ones as the bufferbeam number will need changing. No real skill needed in adding a different cabside numberplate and I understand the model is supplied with etched ones to be fitted

Numberplates - etched - Best fitted IME with a tiny bit of double sided tape

https://modelmaster.uk/324-4mm-scale-63 ... 43xx-2-6-0
https://www.247developments.co.uk/ex_gw ... .html#43XX
https://fox-transfers.co.uk/etched-plat ... eriod=2173

Bufferbeam numbers - waterslide
https://modelmaster.uk/4mm-pre-national ... black.html
https://fox-transfers.co.uk/transfers/g ... -numbering

Depending on the number chosen you might get away with a transfer over the existing one on the bufferbeam - alternatively keep an eye on forums for anyone who has renumbered theirs and how they got rid of the existing bufferbeam number.

[Bigmet]

... I expect I'll learn to live with it, but those of you who do want every detail correct might want to avoid this version.

I have discovered over the years that I am very 'variable geometry' on such deviations from prototype appearance. If the deviation alters the character of the model such that it doesn't well represent the prototype as a class, then nothing will do but correction if possible, or no purchase at all if not. But if the deviation properly reflects genuine variations within the class, just the wrong number applied for that (particular collection of) variation(s), I will live with it in most cases. My Hornby L1s (Thompson 2-6-4T) are a case in point, Hornby went to some trouble to represent the many variations within the class, and not one of my three properly corresponds to a loco allocated to the KX area. Can I bring myself to care? No, because they all look fully like class members.

[UrbanHermit]

Thanks both, for the helpful replies. Helpful, that is, in totally opposite directions, one showing me how to change it and the other encouraging me to live with it. I'm now torn in two.

I've been doing some digging, and I have discovered that of the 638x series only two, 6381 and 6385, got outside steam pipes before WWII, leaving me with a choice of eight alternative identities available by changing just the last digit. Though the minefield doesn't end there. I'd feel the need to check whether my chosen engine had the long or the short safety-valve bonnet, another detail that's pretty obvious even to a casual glance.

On the other hand, railway modelling is full of compromises, starting as far as OO is concerned with the gauge – and my layout, which is supposedly set in Wales in the late thirties, already has quite a few.

I have a Dukedog, and they spent nearly all of their lives on lines for which several of my locomotives (including the 43xx) were too heavy.

I have two locos in post-war livery with GWR in dirty great letters. I've been meaning to change this, and even have the transfers, but haven't got round to it.

I have several coaches in post-war livery. This is really confusing. The GWR stopped putting 'Great Western' in full on locos in 1934, but started putting it on coaches, which previously had never had it, after WWII.

I have five of those Bachmann coaches depicting a design introduced in 1938. My layout depicts a single-track main line and a branch, not the sort of territory where you'd expect to see much brand-new express stock.

I see two morals here. (a) A little learning is a dangerous thing. (b) What's a pair of steam pipes between friends?

I see that some of the denizens over at RMWeb are dissatisfied with the slow running of this model. All I can say is that they must have duff ones, because mine, with minimal running in, no lubrication, and no change to any settings, goes smoothly up from and down to a really slow creep. It's a lovely runner.