Dapol OO Gauge Hawthorn Leslie 0-4-0

[Zunnan]

11 hours ago, Les1952 said:

 

The colour pic I have of the row of HL saddletanks at Wearmouth colliery would indicate that no two of them were actually the same shade of blue (though they MIGHT have been when first repainted) as blue liveries weren't exactly known for being colour consistent.

 

Les

 

 

Yes, very much correct that no two were really the same. However, back on page 10 of this thread is a colour photo of RSH 7807 'No 8' which presumably was the inspiration for the NCB liveried model. That photo shows it in a washed out weathered blue, which is still a dark shade even though it is heavily faded. Dapol have done NCB(ish) dark blue very well on their Sentinels in the past. I would have thought the safe bet would have been to match the shade of blue to one which has previously been well received on models Dapol has produced.

 

And given that 'Asbestos' is preserved and very easy to access at Chasewater, what on earth went wrong there? There are hundreds of photos of the locomotive in steam over a very long period with the only major variable to the Green livery being the lining and a red running plate at one time. 'Asbestos' has also ran in Dark Blue livery and Maroon back in the 1960s and 70s, but I've yet to find any photos of her in dayglow green as per the Dapol rendition.

[Les1952]

9 hours ago, Zunnan said:

 

Yes, very much correct that no two were really the same. However, back on page 10 of this thread is a colour photo of RSH 7807 'No 8' which presumably was the inspiration for the NCB liveried model. That photo shows it in a washed out weathered blue, which is still a dark shade even though it is heavily faded. Dapol have done NCB(ish) dark blue very well on their Sentinels in the past. I would have thought the safe bet would have been to match the shade of blue to one which has previously been well received on models Dapol has produced.

 

And given that 'Asbestos' is preserved and very easy to access at Chasewater, what on earth went wrong there? There are hundreds of photos of the locomotive in steam over a very long period with the only major variable to the Green livery being the lining and a red running plate at one time. 'Asbestos' has also ran in Dark Blue livery and Maroon back in the 1960s and 70s, but I've yet to find any photos of her in dayglow green as per the Dapol rendition.

 

I remember from the first Dapol A3s that what Dapol specify and what the Chinese factory interprets it as can be two different things-

 

For example 2750 correctly has the numbers on the cab two different sizes- a certain Dapol Dave blew a fuse when he saw it as they had been specified the same size- the factory found a picture that showed them different- subsequent research shows 2749 and 2751 were outshopped the same....

Similarly the factory looking for a pic of an LNER A3 to look at the lining below the footplate found a colour slide taken in bright low sun and copied the colour, giving an incorrect green background rather than the black. 

 

It isn't just Dapol- I have quite a few clangers in my collection from Minitrix, Kato and especially Hobbytrain.  

 

Les

 

Edited October 8 by Les1952

[John Isherwood]

6 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

 

I remember from the first Dapol A3s that what Dapol specify and what the Chinese factory interprets it as can be two different things-

 

For example 2750 correctly has the numbers on the cab two different sizes- a certain Dapol Dave blew a fuse when he saw it as they had been specified the same size- the factory found a picture that showed them different- subsequent research shows 2749 and 2751 were outshopped the same....

Similarly the factory looking for a pic of an LNER A3 to look at the lining below the footplate found a colour slide taken in bright low sun and copied the colour, giving an incorrect green background rather than the black. 

 

It isn't just Dapol- I have quite a few clangers in my collection from Minitrix, Kato and especially Hobbytrain.  

 

Les

 

 

So - it would seem that authenticity is very much a function of how much of the research is left to the factory.

 

This shouldn't really be a surprise - it is well reported that KRM supply minimal research to China.

 

It is obvious that time spent by UK researchers will be several factors more expensive than Chinese researchers.

 

However, given UK researchers with a modicum of knowledge of UK railways, the chances of getting it 'right' are many times greater than relying on someone who has never seen, or even heard of, the prototype.

 

If I were commissioning a UK model, I would leave NOTHING for the factory to research, so that ANY errors in the engineering and livery samples could be rejected at no inherant cost.

 

John Isherwood.

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, John Isherwood said:

 

 

 

If I were commissioning a UK model, I would leave NOTHING for the factory to research, so that ANY errors in the engineering and livery samples could be rejected at no inherant cost.

 

Sounds easy but what if you get it so 100% right the factory engineering principles cannot fit the design brief at a realistic cost ?

 

value is only created through utility and warranty… utility is worthless if you cant run it because of size/weight/electrical/clearance etc issues under the hood… the factory may have a more pragmatic view of whats possible, economical and resourceable locally then our man in the museum.

 

At which point compromise creeps in, and t&c clauses go out of the window as change order fees come in… of course you could do all that and assemble it here too… but then the price will really go up.

Collaboration i believe is the key.

 

 

Edited October 8 by adb968008

[John Isherwood]

On 08/10/2024 at 21:53, adb968008 said:

Sounds easy but what if you get it so 100% right the factory engineering principles cannot fit the design brief at a realistic cost ?

 

value is only created through utility and warranty… utility is worthless if you cant run it because of size/weight/electrical/clearance etc issues under the hood… the factory may have a more pragmatic view of whats possible, economical and resourceable locally then our man in the museum.

 

At which point compromise creeps in, and t&c clauses go out of the window as change order fees come in… of course you could do all that and assemble it here too… but then the price will really go up.

Collaboration i believe is the key.

 

 

 

If a 'perfect' design brief and specification is submitted to the factory, and they come back with compromises that need to be made in order to ensure practicability, then the commissioner remains in control.

 

If, on the other hand, a vague brief / spec. is submitted, then the factory will introduce whatever compromises / inaccuracies they wish for their own convenience; commissioner control is immediately lost.

 

In a career embracing the writing of innumerable specifications and bills of quantities, (albeit for civil engineering projects), I know that it is ESSENTIAL that the documents are written so as to achieve the optimum desired outcome. If the contractor wishes to amend the documents, for whatever reason, the onus is on them to convince the commissioner that such amendments are necessary, and will not unduly compromise the outcome.

 

Sloppy specification will always produce unsatisfactory outcomes!

 

John Isherwood.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 18:00 by John Isherwood

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, John Isherwood said:

 

Sloppy specification will always produce unsatisfactory outcomes!

 

On that we all agree.

 

Your assuming every model is instigated by a commissioner here in the UK deciding to make a prototype.

 

But some Chinese researchers are better than you suggest. They are very capable of producing excellant CAD designs from afar, in at least one case from online photos, known accurate dimensions scaled coordinates, and sources alone, as the prototype and its drawings don't exist. 
They aren't afraid to ask for help along the way too, where they feel they can trust those they reach out to, or to seek a commissioner to embrace their CAD project and subsequently engages them to take that project forwards under there umbrella.

 

They are among us, on here.

 

The proof of the pudding is often feted on here, but they are far too shy to approach from the shadows and take credit, for fear of how they are received, ultimately they are looking for work, not doing this for pleasure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 9 by adb968008

[John Isherwood]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

On that we all agree.

 

Your assuming every model is instigated by a commissioner here in the UK deciding to make a prototype.

 

But some Chinese researchers are better than you suggest. They are very capable of producing excellant CAD designs from afar, in at least one case from online photos, known accurate dimensions scaled coordinates, and sources alone, as the prototype and its drawings don't exist. 
They aren't afraid to ask for help along the way too, where they feel they can trust those they reach out to, or to seek a commissioner to embrace their CAD project and subsequently engages them to take that project forwards under there umbrella.

 

They are among us, on here.

 

The proof of the pudding is often feted on here, but they are far too shy to approach from the shadows and take credit, for fear of how they are received, ultimately they are looking for work, not doing this for pleasure.

 

In the instance of a China-initiated project, it is incumbent upon any prospective sponsor to exercise due diligence.

 

A close investigation of work done to date, vis-a-vis accuracy to the prototype, would be essential.

 

The bottom line is that the person who pays the bill for production has the greatest interest in the ultimate model being accurate - and thereby appealing to prospective customers.

 

Whilst it is not possible in this case for the commissioning customer to control the process from the outset, it is certainly in that person's interest to be doubly diligent from the point of entry into the project.

 

John Isherwood.

[NHY 581]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

On that we all agree.

 

Your assuming every model is instigated by a commissioner here in the UK deciding to make a prototype.

 

But some Chinese researchers are better than you suggest. They are very capable of producing excellant CAD designs from afar, in at least one case from online photos, known accurate dimensions scaled coordinates, and sources alone, as the prototype and its drawings don't exist. 
They aren't afraid to ask for help along the way too, where they feel they can trust those they reach out to, or to seek a commissioner to embrace their CAD project and subsequently engages them to take that project forwards under there umbrella.

 

They are among us, on here.

 

The proof of the pudding is often feted on here, but they are far too shy to approach from the shadows and take credit, for fear of how they are received, ultimately they are looking for work, not doing this for pleasure.

 

 

Interesting statement. You appear to write from the point of view of  having specific  knowledge. 

 

What models/manufactuer are you alluding to here ? 

 

Rob

 

 

[Les1952]

On 08/10/2024 at 20:44, John Isherwood said:

 

So - it would seem that authenticity is very much a function of how much of the research is left to the factory.

 

This shouldn't really be a surprise - it is well reported that KRM supply minimal research to China.

 

 

If I were commissioning a UK model, I would leave NOTHING for the factory to research, so that ANY errors in the engineering and livery samples could be rejected at no inherant cost.

 

John Isherwood.

 

It wouldn't have helped in the case of the A3.  The specification for under the running plate was black.  The photo (found by the factory on Colourail) showed this black as green.  The factory went with the photo.  Under these circumstances you can reject what you like but you won't get your revised product until you've paid for the changes....

 

Les

[Phil Parker]

Can we get this back on topic please? General discussions on commissioning are fine, but would be better in their own topic.

 

Thanks

[GMKAT7]

Good morning folks,

 

I ran my Henry yesterday for the first time since acquiring it, although it had been tested by Derails before they posted it out.

 

Wow!

Seriously impressed as it started so smoothly at speed setting 20 on my Gaugemaster Combi.

I think that's the best yet for modern RTR locos, although I will check my PI Victory again.

 

Tempted to get another, although I shouldn't really 😂

 

Cheers, Nigel.