Dapol (re)announce HST Protype train - open for pre-orders

Started by NGS-PO, September 08, 2018, 01:23:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hiawatha

Quote from: davidinyork on September 09, 2018, 03:23:22 PM
I get this:



I also wondered where the prices came from as I also got the same screen. If you click the picture to enlarge it, after that the price and the pre-order button magically appear. So, certainly not your fault that you can't see a price.

But one other thing? Why do you think that the consist is wrong? The numbers Dapol offers are all correct as far as I can see:
http://www.traintesting.com/consist_HST.htm

QuoteNote:
Two prototype Mark 3 coaches, used in HST trials, but only in the service train for a short period that ran on the WR, were First Class Open No E11001, and Second Class Open No E12001. These were withdrawn from stock and substantially rebuilt at Wolverton works, to become part of the new Royal Train. No E11001 is now No 2903; the Queen's Saloon. No E12001 is now No 2904; the Duke's Saloon.

Do you mean that 11001 and 12001 should not be included in Dapol's sets?
Peter

ohlavache

Quote from: Hiawatha on September 09, 2018, 04:55:38 PM
Quote from: davidinyork on September 09, 2018, 03:23:22 PM
I get this:



I also wondered where the prices came from as I also got the same screen. If you click the picture to enlarge it, after that the price and the pre-order button magically appear. So, certainly not your fault that you can't see a price.

The same for me. No price on the web page.
So there's a problem with Dapol's web site.

davidinyork

#47
Quote from: Hiawatha on September 09, 2018, 04:55:38 PM
Do you mean that 11001 and 12001 should not be included in Dapol's sets?

Depends on the period to be modelled - they are only appropriate for the early period of testing. That Train Testing site is very useful - the bloke who wrote it was evidently involved in testing of the set at the time.

All the coaches were the same so could be used interchangeably. As built, they were closer to the Mk3a loco-hauled coaches than to the production HST trailers - they had buffers, coupling hooks and drophead buckeye couplers, RCH jumper, and took a standard ETS supply. The 36-way control cable was at a higher level, beside the gangway. They had the three small roof vents at each end (again, as Mk3a), but no raised window frames (difficult to describe this, but if you look at one you will see what I mean). The doors were different - instead of the whole upper part being slightly recessed (as on both Mk3a/b and production HST Mk3s), it wasn't and instead there was a recess around the handle. None of the surviving coaches retain the original type of doors.

Production HST trailers differ in that they don't have buffers, the coupler is a fixed head buckeye (alliance coupler, technically), the 36-way control cable runs along the bottom, beneath the coupler, the RCH jumpers were dispensed wiith (the functions incoroporated into the main control cable), and the ETS feed is a 3-phase supply, meaning that individual motor/alternator sets aren't needed on the coaches.

The surviving coaches from the prototype set are all much changed. Apart from the two in the royal train, which have many bespoke alterations, they are all now converted into stanndard HST trailers - two in Network Rail's NMT, two with GWR (those are standard class), and three with LNER (one first and two standard). They can be identified by the lack of raised window frames, and the different roof vents (although trailers converted from loco-hauled also have these roof vents - the lack of window frames is unique to the prototype trailers).

This is 42353 (originally 12002):



Compare with a standard trailer, e.g. (not my photo):
https://shed83a.smugmug.com/CoachingStock/Mk3-HST/Mk3-TS/Mk3-TS-425xx/i-V97TFrc/A

The different vents on the roof are obvious; the window frames less so but hopefully the difference can still be seen.

Incidentally, for the 2012 Railfest event at the NRM, FGW temporarily vinyled 42353 in its original livery and it was displayed with the surviving prototype power car.

davidinyork

Quote from: Lindi on September 09, 2018, 05:34:29 PM
Running the HSDT  as a ten coach train is correct and it was in this formation it started revenue earing service on the Western Region in May 1975. After a short time two coaches (a First Open and a Second Open) were removed (they became part of the Royal Train).

Those two coaches were intially part of the Mk3 prototype pool, but I've never seen any pictures of the set actually running as a ten coach train - eight seems to be the maximum.

The page that you link to doesn't imply that all ten coaches were used at once - it says that the two which became part of the royal train only ran in the service train for a short period, with nothing about formations or train length - although at the top of the page it does say "The original HST prototype train included 3 first class coaches, three second class coaches, a buffet and a kitchen car."

NeMo

I can't believe we're arguing over this.

@davidinyork, I gave a link to a book with descriptions of the train formations, and the typical carriages used, back on page 3 of this thread.

http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=42511.msg527339#msg527339

@Lindi restated the same information some hours later, so I'm comfortable it's broadly correct.

Surely this information matched with what Dapol have offered adequate for most modellers. If the numbers aren't precisely right, then anyone's free to renumber the coaches using transfers available from the vendor of their choice.

At the end of the day this product may never be produced, so worrying about the running numbers on the coaches does seem a bit premature. If it's something either of you believe is massively important, then why not collect the evidence and send it off to Dapol? More chance of making a difference doing that than arguing about it here!

Cheers, NeMo
(Former NGS Journal Editor)

davidinyork

Quote from: NeMo on September 09, 2018, 07:34:27 PM
I can't believe we're arguing over this.

@davidinyork, I gave a link to a book with descriptions of the train formations, and the typical carriages used, back on page 3 of this thread.

http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=42511.msg527339#msg527339

@Lindi restated the same information some hours later, so I'm comfortable it's broadly correct.


You are quoting Marsden's book, which is known to contain a lot of errors.

davidinyork

Quote from: Lindi on September 09, 2018, 07:47:29 PM
Quote from: davidinyork on September 09, 2018, 07:43:11 PM
Quote from: NeMo on September 09, 2018, 07:34:27 PM
I can't believe we're arguing over this.

@davidinyork, I gave a link to a book with descriptions of the train formations, and the typical carriages used, back on page 3 of this thread.

http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=42511.msg527339#msg527339

@Lindi restated the same information some hours later, so I'm comfortable it's broadly correct.


You are quoting Marsden's book, which is known to contain a lot of errors.

I was using pictorial evidence of 2+7 car formations from July 1977 onwards. If you look on the internet there are numerous pictures showing this formation.

Yes there are. So for anyone wanting to model that rather than 2+8 they are going to have to buy three coaches they don't need rather than two...

NeMo

Quote from: davidinyork on September 09, 2018, 07:43:11 PM
You are quoting Marsden's book, which is known to contain a lot of errors.

Says who?

In any case, the quoted train formation appears to be correct, and as @Lindi says, you can find evidence of such online.

Cheers, NeMo
(Former NGS Journal Editor)

davidinyork

Quote from: NeMo on September 09, 2018, 08:20:32 PM
Quote from: davidinyork on September 09, 2018, 07:43:11 PM
You are quoting Marsden's book, which is known to contain a lot of errors.

Says who?

In any case, the quoted train formation appears to be correct, and as @Lindi says, you can find evidence of such online.

Cheers, NeMo

A lot of people - I've noticed quite a few, and various members of the 125 group have pointed out a lot more. This isn't the only one of Marsden's books where people who know the class concerned are not impressed.

the 2+7 formation for much of the in-service running is correct - but I've still not seen any evidence that it ran with ten carriages.

NeMo

Quote from: davidinyork on September 09, 2018, 08:26:06 PM
the 2+7 formation for much of the in-service running is correct - but I've still not seen any evidence that it ran with ten carriages.

Seems unlikely, so far as normal operating service goes. On page 26 of the HST Silver Jubilee book it is stated that two of the trailers (TF 11001, TS 12001) were withdrawn from the project in early 1974 and rebuilt into Royal Train vehicles (discussed in more detail in chapter 4 of this same book).

It is stated that by the time of the HSDT trials, these two coaches were "technically spare" and surplus to "operating needs" and removed from the prototype train before it entered full passenger service.

Others may know if the HSDT ever operated as a 2+10 train during development runs, but so far as normal (1974-1976) running goes, definitely 2+7 was the most usual configuration.

Cheers, NeMo
(Former NGS Journal Editor)

Yet_Another

I got an email from Dapol about this last week, as I'd previously expressed an interest.

It's been hard work reading through this thread, but it seems that based on the most common configuration, one needs to order four items: the power cars, the catering pack, and both coach packs.

It does seem a bit off that I'm going to end up with three spare coaches, but if one takes a positive view, that's a head start on the royal train  :thumbsup:

At least there's no money up front for this. If it does get into production, I suspect there will be late-comers to pick up any slack from expressions not taken up.
Tony

'...things are not done by those who sit down to count the cost of every thought and act.' - Sir Daniel Gooch of IKB

Bob G

I'd be a lot happier if the original two that became Royal Train coaches were excluded and the buffet cars were put into the first coach pack instead.

I believe the drive to produce all eight TS and TF coaches was originally from the Miller Group who wanted them all done, and probably Dapol themselves who are retooling the coaches specifically for this train, so they have to make money by producing them so they need us to support the tooling costs by buying more coaches than we technically want.

The thing about the buffet cars is that they are not going to be retooled and I can understand that a purist might not buy these as they are technically wrong (hence why they are put in a separate pack), but to get a prototypical 2+8 set would seem to make better sense to me than to have to buy a 2+10 which if it ran at all only did so at the very start of trials.

Whichever way it pans out, I do want this train, so if we had to pay more £££s for fewer coaches, then I suppose it makes sense to have more coaches for the same price.

Best
Bob

PS here i am spotting the prototype on 27 May 1975 at Old Oak, and there is also a Class A tank in the background. Happy days! (on the same day i saw the last five Hymeks in service too)



njee20

Are they tooling specifically for these coaches? Given the compromises on loco hauled versus HST mk3s and the 'standard' buffet offering that seems very surprising on a model of dubious profitability anyway.

Snowwolflair

Quote from: njee20 on September 19, 2018, 11:12:09 AM
Are they tooling specifically for these coaches? Given the compromises on loco hauled versus HST mk3s and the 'standard' buffet offering that seems very surprising on a model of dubious profitability anyway.

Could be drop in variation tooling to change details which is a lot cheaper

davidinyork

Quote from: Snowwolflair on September 19, 2018, 11:14:19 AM
Quote from: njee20 on September 19, 2018, 11:12:09 AM
Are they tooling specifically for these coaches? Given the compromises on loco hauled versus HST mk3s and the 'standard' buffet offering that seems very surprising on a model of dubious profitability anyway.

Could be drop in variation tooling to change details which is a lot cheaper

The profile of the slam doors is different, so I would think that completely new tooling would be required.

Please Support Us!
March Goal: £100.00
Due Date: Mar 31
Total Receipts: £82.34
Below Goal: £17.66
Site Currency: GBP
82% 
March Donations