BR(S) Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Looks like the issue has been brought up on the Digest page already. Just awaiting a response. Post #23 here: https://digest.Dapol.co.uk/forum/main-forum/class-21-29/793-still-looking-for-news/page2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peak experience Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) If Dapol know about this valence issue, then I would have thought that they would have issued a caveat regarding it. The fact they haven't, makes me fear the worst . Edited March 3, 2018 by peak experience Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Endacott Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Is the raised beading along the lower body side also too wide? Geoff Endacott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted March 3, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 3, 2018 (edited) One of the guys on the DEMU forum has questioned the absence the crease line halfway up the body side. He also thinks the surrounds around the grilles may be to narrow and stick out too far. Anyone else got any thoughts on these issues? I agree with him. Is the raised beading along the lower body side also too wide? Geoff Endacott Well spotted Geoff. To quote another DEMU member After such a lengthy gestation, it would be frustrating to see the production models having issues. Edited March 3, 2018 by Clive Mortimore Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peak experience Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 One of the guys on the DEMU forum has questioned the absence the crease line halfway up the body side. He also thinks the surrounds around the grilles may be to narrow and stick out too far. Anyone else got any thoughts on these issues? I agree with him. Well spotted Geoff. To quote another DEMU member It certainly looks from the EP pic that the 'crease' is absent. It's a definite line on the prototype. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 One of the guys on the DEMU forum has questioned the absence the crease line halfway up the body side. He also thinks the surrounds around the grilles may be to narrow and stick out too far. Anyone else got any thoughts on these issues? I agree with him. That's why I shall go to Ally Pally in the hope of seeing the EP. The mid height horizontal crease line in the bodyside is hinted at in the applied etched grille. Whether it is present sufficiently in the bodyside, I certainly cannot gauge from the screen image. Needs eyes on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signaller69 Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Just a reminder we have a very good resource on the 21/29 here on RMweb: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/47894-sad-eyed-people-the-class-21-and-29-livery-resource/?fromsearch=1 Hopefully being an EP it will be revised so the following, based on the EP image shown above will be moot. Like many others I want to see this model "right" so this is not criticism, just observation. In addition to previous comments, another major ommission appears to be the prominent windscreen surrounds which play a big part in capturing the "face". There is no rivet detail on the EP either, whilst admittedly this is very subtle on the real thing, it is there and is something Hornby did a good job with imho. The etched grille is a welcome touch but what is going on with the extra horizontal "bars" across it? There should be only one, at waist height level a fraction higher than the bodyside crease (the crease is just a slight angle change, with a row of rivets along it; it does maybe look a little too subtle on the EP but may be more noticable if/when Dapol add the rivet detail). Body/Bogie gap looks a little excessive. Admittedly, clearances on the real thing are tiny (check the gap on the real thing between the bufferbeam valence and the sandboxes for instance), this is another area that can make or break a model. Presumably the model has been designed to work on first radius track? I will sign up and add these comments to the Dapol site shortly if no-one else has done so. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 3, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 3, 2018 Just a reminder we have a very good resource on the 21/29 here on RMweb: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/47894-sad-eyed-people-the-class-21-and-29-livery-resource/?fromsearch=1 Hopefully being an EP it will be revised so the following, based on the EP image shown above will be moot. Like many others I want to see this model "right" so this is not criticism, just observation. In addition to previous comments, another major ommission appears to be the prominent windscreen surrounds which play a big part in capturing the "face". There is no rivet detail on the EP either, whilst admittedly this is very subtle on the real thing, it is there and is something Hornby did a good job with imho. The etched grille is a welcome touch but what is going on with the extra horizontal "bars" across it? There should be only one, at waist height level a fraction higher than the bodyside crease (the crease is just a slight angle change, with a row of rivets along it; it does maybe look a little too subtle on the EP but may be more noticable if/when Dapol add the rivet detail). Body/Bogie gap looks a little excessive. Admittedly, clearances on the real thing are tiny (check the gap on the real thing between the bufferbeam valence and the sandboxes for instance), this is another area that can make or break a model. Presumably the model has been designed to work on first radius track? I will sign up and add these comments to the Dapol site shortly if no-one else has done so. Early EPs often don't show rivet detail as it tends to be added after the rest of the tooling has been got up to finished detail standard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signaller69 Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Early EPs often don't show rivet detail as it tends to be added after the rest of the tooling has been got up to finished detail standard. Thanks, I did wonder if that was the case but wasn't sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
37081LochLong Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 I got a reply on the Digest stating they will start work on the second EP soon and will be adjusting the turn under along with some other detailspost 25 - https://digest.Dapol.co.uk/forum/main-forum/class-21-29/793-still-looking-for-news/page2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signaller69 Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 I got a reply on the Digest stating they will start work on the second EP soon and will be adjusting the turn under along with some other details post 25 - https://digest.Dapol.co.uk/forum/main-forum/class-21-29/793-still-looking-for-news/page2 Good stuff. I've registered but awaiting Moderator to add me still. . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 I got a reply on the Digest stating they will start work on the second EP soon and will be adjusting the turn under along with some other details post 25 - https://digest.Dapol.co.uk/forum/main-forum/class-21-29/793-still-looking-for-news/page2 "The lower valance 'turn under' is angled however this will be increased more in line with the prototype" I'd rather it was in line with, rather than 'more in line with,' if I'm honest. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signaller69 Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 Cheers mate. Problem when using a phone to browse. Looks like the issue has been brought up on the Digest page already. Just awaiting a response. Edit: just noticed it's you Loch long. Glad its not just me that had that phone problem then. When I clicked the link several posts back it loaded the D.D. page then closed my browser down. Worked ok when I googled the page though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Pteremy Posted March 4, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 4, 2018 I guess that a significant turn under could create a problem when fitting the body shell to the chassis - although I don't think that the turn under was as pronounced on the Class 22 this may be why the valances on the Dapol Class 22 were included in a detailing pack, to be fitted by the purchaser? The Class 22s also had a mid body 'crease' which is captured on the Dapol version, so I doubt that will be missing here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 I guess that a significant turn under could create a problem when fitting the body shell to the chassis - although I don't think that the turn under was as pronounced on the Class 22 this may be why the valances on the Dapol Class 22 were included in a detailing pack, to be fitted by the purchaser? The Class 22s also had a mid body 'crease' which is captured on the Dapol version, so I doubt that will be missing here. The corner valance intersection and solebar profile are completely different on the two classes. The 21 is far more marked, the 22 flatter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 I guess that a significant turn under could create a problem when fitting the body shell to the chassis ... There's no such problem. The width available within the underside body opening with the bevelled turn under fully represented will still be plentifui to admit a twin bogie drive line with a good fat motor. It might prevent the possibility of making the body clip on to the mechanism; but screw attachment to internally moulded blocks is one suitable proven alternative. There is a challenge in reproducing the external form accurately, it may be that a two piece body shell will be necessary. A single piece body moulding would pose a mould release problem, but there are several potential solutions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brenn Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 See EP pictures are up on the Dapol site Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 Hi Bob Having a second look I can see what you mean, there is no turnunder like on the real thing along the whole body side. A well just means getting file out and shaping it, then repainting the bottom part of the body......on a loco that will be in the £150 price range. :nono: :nono: I really must get a decoder in the Hornby one I did some years ago and replace the damaged radiator grill etch. I might end up feeling a little smug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Pteremy Posted March 7, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 7, 2018 The corner valance intersection and solebar profile are completely different on the two classes. The 21 is far more marked, the 22 flatter. Correct - more pronounced There's no such problem. The width available within the underside body opening with the bevelled turn under fully represented will still be plentifui to admit a twin bogie drive line with a good fat motor. It might prevent the possibility of making the body clip on to the mechanism; but screw attachment to internally moulded blocks is one suitable proven alternative. There is a challenge in reproducing the external form accurately, it may be that a two piece body shell will be necessary. A single piece body moulding would pose a mould release problem, but there are several potential solutions A bespoke chassis then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimbus Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 Correct - more pronounced A bespoke chassis then. Necessary anyway for the particular bogie centres of this loco, I'd have thought. The Nim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Pteremy Posted March 8, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 8, 2018 Necessary anyway for the particular bogie centres of this loco, I'd have thought. The Nim. Good luck then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spackz Posted March 18, 2018 Author Share Posted March 18, 2018 (edited) Look out for the update this week gents. We should find out the Class 21 and Class 29 numbers and liveries. Edited March 18, 2018 by spackz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spackz Posted March 25, 2018 Author Share Posted March 25, 2018 I haven't been able to make it but has anyone been to the Dapol stand and asked about the identities for the Class 21/29s apparently they are available but not published on any mainstream site yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold adb968008 Posted March 25, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) UnPainted samples below. I understand release is next year, this is a first EP. Numbers have been decided but we’re not elaborated, I did point out the potential issues with choosing D6121 / D6122 which they indicated wasn’t one of the chosen ones. Edited September 10 by adb968008 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spackz Posted March 25, 2018 Author Share Posted March 25, 2018 Thanks ADB 1 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