RMweb Gold Revolution Ben Posted October 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 28, 2015 Hi Cav, Your comments about the 56 got me thinking, and I went back to the original review I wrote for Model Rail in 2012. I measured the width of the Dapol 56 at 19.3mm. According to my data, the real thing is 2790mm wide, which scales to 18.9, so the Dapol model is 0.4mm too wide. However I also checked the review of the Farish 47 in 2008, and found that it was 18.6mm wide, so if we take the same width measurement for the prototype then the Farish model is 0.3mm too narrow. So comparing the two exaggerates the issue, since one is to wide but the other is too thin! Also worth mentioning the relative size: Dapol is 2.1% too wide, Farish 1.6% too narrow.... but very interesting how visible the difference is when they are next to each other. cheers Ben A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) Yes Ben when I was checking dims I also found this to be the case however the 56 clearly looks proportionally too wide, however the 47 doesn't look propertionally thin and hence the roof domes look wrong and right respectively. The 56 when comparing to photos of the real loco looks like it needs at least another 1mm to 1.5mm in height to get the shape correct. It would be interesting to measure up a Hornby class 56 as they look to be correct in this respect. I wonder if the width of the cab front stacks up? Both the 47 and 56 have cabs that narrow as they come from the main body width to the nose. The 56's front end looks considerably wider than the 47's, maybe overall width isn't the issue but cab front width? Edited October 28, 2015 by RBE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium richierich Posted October 28, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 28, 2015 Good point there Cav. The Hornby 56 cab tappers at the front, which measures 31.25mm on a Romanian variant, BREL Early Doncaster build and late BREL Doncaster build bodies. Overall body width is 35.31mm 2790 / 76.2 = 36.71 So the body is under width by 1.6mm! assuming 2790 is correct. Will consult in some reference books . . . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 That is interesting. The Hornby one looks right as does the farish 47. Are we sure that 2790mm is correct. My reference book says 2790mm (9ft 2in) but this drawing suggests 8ft 9.5in (2680mm). Scaling that to N (2680/148 = 18.1mm) or 4mm scale (2680/76.2 = 35.17mm). To me these reflect the better looking Hornby 56 and farish 47. I don't know. I cant measure across the nose of the Dapol 56 right now but I'll do it tomorrow and compare with the Hornby dims. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Ben Posted October 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 28, 2015 Hi Cav, Some of the references I had showed the 47 width at 8'9.5" too. There was a big debate about this a few years ago when Heljan released an overwide model of the 47 in OO, but I can't remember how it was resolved, though I am pretty sure at least a couple of people mmeasured the width of a 47 to check. cheers Ben A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
omgTrain Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 This thread looks fantastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 Cheers. Please follow along with us. I will do more modelling soon after my forced Hiatus due to spinal surgery! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 Hi Cav, Some of the references I had showed the 47 width at 8'9.5" too. There was a big debate about this a few years ago when Heljan released an overwide model of the 47 in OO, but I can't remember how it was resolved, though I am pretty sure at least a couple of people mmeasured the width of a 47 to check. cheers Ben A. Be interesting to see those results Ben. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium richierich Posted October 29, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 29, 2015 The width quoted by Ben is not quite right. Brush brochure for the 56 status width over handrails is 2794mm. Width over body sides is 2686mm. Therefore:- 2686 / 76 = 35.34mm So I'd suggest the Hornby body is more or less spot on in width. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Makes sense to me. For N gauge that makes it as follows. 2686/148 = 18.15mm Thats actaully 0.45mm narrower than the farish 47 given Bens farish dims (I will measure mine later as well to make sure we get the same results). The Dapol 56 at 19.3mm is a wopping 1.15mm too wide which scales at 170mm or almost 7 inches in old money. In the flesh is most certainly looks wide to me. It seems that quoted prototype widths for the 56 are over handrails given Rich's data (4mm discrepancy) & it seems that Dapol have followed this. Farish though still a tad wide looks to have used the correct width as a basis. Edited October 29, 2015 by RBE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted November 1, 2015 Author Share Posted November 1, 2015 Been building these for the sliced through office units. 14 of these little gems. Just need a coat of paint and some big boxy CRT computer monitors to complete! 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus 37 Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Superb Mate. Just brilliant. Remember though, when your adding an office person, skirts were shorter in the 80's Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted November 1, 2015 Author Share Posted November 1, 2015 Thanks bud. Yes they were a bit on tge short side. I think I may be limited by what the figures are wearing though. Not sure how easy modification of N gauge figures are! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeT Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Excellent stuff there Cav, watching with interest... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Ben Posted November 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 2, 2015 Hi all, The difference between the measurements across the handrails and across the body certainly rings a bell - I have a feeling the problem with the Heljan 47 was the same - but TBH I didn't pay that much attention as it was 4mm. I think most of the chat took place on one of the now defunct Yahoo groups - maybe the Demu group before it became a forum.... cheers Ben A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyboy Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 a couple of BOT shots from the 90s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 Wow thanks, those are great. Do you have them in a higher resolution? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyboy Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 more BOT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyboy Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Yes I have them larger and they are on my Flickr site too. I also have notes of sightings at BOT during the early 90s if they are of interest Love the project and the locos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted November 18, 2015 Author Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) The ones of the 58 and 47 are ace as they show lots of the details that I need to model. I would be very interested in higher res versions. Thanks for your interest, as my back has started to recover I am now gradually increasing my modelling a little. I should hopefully be back on the layout soon but have a few commissions to finish off first! Edited November 18, 2015 by RBE 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyboy Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 The ones of the 58 and 47 are ace as they show lots of the details that I need to model. I would be very interested in higher res versions. Thanks for your interest, as my back has started to recover I am now gradually increasing my modelling a little. I should hopefully be back on the layout soon but have a few commissions to finish off first! [and then there is this attachment=645555:22710508839_78525608ae_m.jpg] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyboy Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 The ones of the 58 and 47 are ace as they show lots of the details that I need to model. I would be very interested in higher res versions. Thanks for your interest, as my back has started to recover I am now gradually increasing my modelling a little. I should hopefully be back on the layout soon but have a few commissions to finish off first! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Ben Posted November 18, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 18, 2015 Hi there, Some great photos there from the 90s. Nice liveries around at that time. cheers Ben A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted November 18, 2015 Author Share Posted November 18, 2015 Absolutely Ben, it really is my favourite period if you hadn't guessed! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.C.M Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I love that shot of the Dutch split box 37 on Catfish wagons. Is there an N gauge model of those available. Cheers Peter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now