who will take on the class 50 now?

[bluedepot]

I read that heljan are going to make a class 50 in o gauge

so demand / profitable in o but not n it seems??!!??!

[njee20]

Probably, done to death, O is an untapped market, so is very elastic in its pricing - easy pickings.

RMWeb seems to be scathing of it because some 'one man band' cottage industry has also announced one (I believe also RTR).

If someone did an O gauge 92 I'd almost certainly buy one purely for display. It was close run with the 60, I nearly bought one a few times!

[broadsword]

I was looking at Marklin O stuff on the Gaugemaster site.
locos at £2 grand, coaches at  £500-£700. Looked great.

[47 years N]

Actually bought BachFar "Glorious". Flat end look IMHO is mostly caused by almost non existent jumper cable boxes when compared with a Dapol class 56. A good dose of weathering powders has made all the difference too. Done the chassis mod just waiting for a decoder. Not sure about lowering the body as looks as if it would cause bogies to foul back of buffer beam?
BTW both side grills on 56 parted company after initial brief running session. QC?

[njee20]

The irony being that the class 50 MU cable boxes are far closer to scale than those on the Dapol 56, which protrude about a scale 18"!

[47 years N]

The irony being that the class 50 MU cable boxes are far closer to scale than those on the Dapol 56, which protrude about a scale 18"!

Maybe,  but funny things happen when scale and perception collide. To further make my point check this picture. The class 50 fittings are chunkier than the 56's

[NeMo]

The irony being that the class 50 MU cable boxes are far closer to scale than those on the Dapol 56, which protrude about a scale 18"!

Maybe,  but funny things happen when scale and perception collide. To further make my point check this picture...

Absolutely. This is why railway modelling is as much art as science. There are times when something on a model might be 100% accurate, but still doesn't look quite right.

We're all "guilty" of this with trees. A typical old pine tree is anything up to 200 ft tall, but you don't see many 15-inch model pine trees on N gauge layouts! In fact anything more than 4 inches tall tends to look a bit silly on small layouts.

Even though @njee20 is right about the physical measurements of the cables on the two locos, the 'to scale' version on the Farish Class 50 *looks* too flat to be convincing. Bringing it forwards a bit would make the loco *look* more detailed, even if it was *less* accurate.

Cheers, NeMo

[Chetcombe]

Here is a close up of a CJM Class 50 which shows how Chris chooses to depict the multiple operation cables - much more like the Dapol Class 56.

Looking at the close up of the Farish model, the other thing that stands out are the absence of the vents either side of the head code box. I believe these may be the horn?



Mine is an unrefurbished 50, so it doesn't have the large headlamp, but this looks way too large on the Farish model. So to me replacing the cables and getting these two key elements of the face of the model more correct (where the vents are the eyes and the headlight is the mouth or nose) would make a huge difference.

[Bealman]

To me, it doesn't matter.

That looks great.

Awesome, actually.

[RailGooner]

.. BTW both side grills on 56 parted company after initial brief running session. QC?

Wouldn't have happened on a Doncaster built.

[railsquid]

Last week I bought a second hand class 50 off eBay. For an old model, to me, it wasn't too bad. Only paid a few quid for it. The plan is to get some extra detail bits and pieces for it and then repaint it. This will be my first project of this kind in N gauge. Bottom of my to do list at the moment but looking forward to giving it a crack.
Certainly a better bet than taking out a mortgage on a CJM or waiting years for someone to produce a new model.

Excellent idea. I picked up a new one for a good price a year or two back (when I say "new", it had evidently been sitting on a shelf for half-a-decade) and it fills a class 50 shaped gap in my fleet. From skimming threads like this I gather it's not perfect, and as a model it doesn't have the "presence" or depth of say a Dapol 52, but to me it looks like a class 50. Though bear in mind the last time I saw one in the flesh was 30 years ago. Anyway it's way better than the alternative (no class 50 at all, and CJM is not an option for me). If someone comes up with a brand new model I'll probably stump up for it.

[njee20]

Totally agree that the Dapol MU cables look far better, possibly as much because they're not mounded, so they have relied, as much as the physical size of them.

The 56 is a great model IMO, looks solid!

[davidinyork]

Totally agree that the Dapol MU cables look far better, possibly as much because they're not mounded, so they have relied, as much as the physical size of them.

The 56 is a great model IMO, looks solid!

Moulded detail on more recent models does tend to be a lot more convincing though - see the Dapol 67 or the Farish 47/7.

[25901JFM]

Only just seen this thread.  Have to say I'm gutted that the Dapol 50 may not ever happen.  The Dapol 56's seems to have done ok even though there are plenty of Farish ones around.
Whilst I have a few vintage examples of the Poole built 50, I don't like them and was looking forward to an updated model.  Personally I feel that this model should sell well, but that is only my personal opinion.  The refurbished version is the one that carried all the livery variations.  As built loco's only ever carried the original BR blue although there were variations on BR logo positions and of course they started fitting the nameplates in 1978.  One missing off the livery variations I saw early on in the thread is 50010 which at some point after refurbishment had a blue roof following a repaint instead of grey.  I guess I may have to dig deep and treat myself to a CJM 50 instead.  This just adds to my frustration with N gauge these days.  The lack of a 4-TC to go with Dapols 33/1 is another pet annoyance of mine...

[47 years N]

Only just seen this thread.  Have to say I'm gutted that the Dapol 50 may not ever happen.  The Dapol 56's seems to have done ok even though there are plenty of Farish ones around.
Whilst I have a few vintage examples of the Poole built 50, I don't like them and was looking forward to an updated model.  Personally I feel that this model should sell well, but that is only my personal opinion.  The refurbished version is the one that carried all the livery variations.  As built loco's only ever carried the original BR blue although there were variations on BR logo positions and of course they started fitting the nameplates in 1978.  One missing off the livery variations I saw early on in the thread is 50010 which at some point after refurbishment had a blue roof following a repaint instead of grey.  I guess I may have to dig deep and treat myself to a CJM 50 instead.  This just adds to my frustration with N gauge these days.  The lack of a 4-TC to go with Dapols 33/1 is another pet annoyance of mine...

The lack of a 4TC even annoys me in Scotland! Of course Farish is in a better position to make a 4TC  than Dapol but why when they don't make locos to shove them?