Jeff Smith Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Revelation of Rapido's next model, the Stirling Single in the NRM, got me thinking about the likely limitations and compromises that making RTR locos capable of negotiating minimum radius curves involves. Clearances around the bogie are quite tight. This particular loco is likely to be a collector's/enthusiast's item not a train set engine and will be relatively expensive. For a loco of this quality and pedigree is it fair to expect Rapido to have to design in the ability to negotiate 18" or thereabout curves? My view is that there is room in the upper end of the RTR market for more accurate representations, clearly labelled to indicate say 36" or even 48" minimum curves. What do others think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 FIA tried it. Outside of a very small circle of MRJ readers it went down like a lead balloon. Best to continue as now and leave it for the aftermarket people to produce scale underpinning kits. Any major player introducing a model that will not run on Jo Public's set track is going to be on a hiding to nothing. Not a commercial risk I would take any way. Bernard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Agree with the above wholeheartedly. Not everyone (probably HARDLY anyone) has a layout with overly generous curves, minimum 36" or 48" radius. Commercial disaster awaits anyone that launches a mainstream model that won't run on 99% of layouts. I think we're stuck with "minimum 2nd radius" and I don't think that's a bad thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Vistisen Posted April 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 9, 2015 FIA tried it. Outside of a very small circle of MRJ readers it went down like a lead balloon. Best to continue as now and leave it for the aftermarket people to produce scale underpinning kits. Any major player introducing a model that will not run on Jo Public's set track is going to be on a hiding to nothing. Not a commercial risk I would take any way. Bernard I doubt that Joe Public will spend £200 on a locomotive ( says he who has an APT-E on order that might not go round the corners on his layout ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Jeff If you go to the smaller shows, especially those which cater for the family/older market where the box shifters reign. Those who leave with box full of items, like good models that go round toy train curves. They tend to have little idea on the finer points of what they are buying, they certainly have no idea about track. But they produce the funds for scale models to become available to one and all. They will not buy an item which will not work on their layouts, that is if they have what we would call a layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 00 is already a fairly severe compromise. If we're going to insist on locos which will only negotiate finescale curves we might as well go the whole hog and demand RTR EM or P4. Some people - even some "serious" modellers - like layouts which aren't all in a straight line but don't have a spare ballroom at their disposal and don't wish to rely on the availability of a club layout. Are they to be denied good quality RTR that will run on their track? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 FIA tried it. Outside of a very small circle of MRJ readers it went down like a lead balloon.... Given that the FIA "Twins" were incredibly expensive and weren't expected to sell in huge volumes, perhaps this was a hit that FIA were willing to take? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Given that the FIA "Twins" were incredibly expensive and weren't expected to sell in huge volumes, perhaps this was a hit that FIA were willing to take? The problem was that they did not sell any where near the number that were produced. They were soon on sale at a massive discount from mostly one retailer. No sign of FIA dipping their toes in the market since. That leads me to think that the project did not turn out as originally intended. I am not getting into any speculation about costs and numbers. However I am very pleased with mine considering the price I paid. Bernard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted April 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 9, 2015 To answer the question directly: I think so. Maybe not the 1st Radius curves that used to be supplied in train sets but certainly 2nd radius. Not to do so would restrict the market. I think there are lots of Model Railway enthusiasts out there with 2nd radius curves and pointwork Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Any major player introducing a model that will not run on Jo Public's set track is going to be on a hiding to nothing. Commercial disaster awaits anyone that launches a mainstream model that won't run on 99% of layouts. The Loco in question is not a "mainstream model", nor is it being made by a "major player". It's a limited edition, highly specified model, made by a company specialising in such projects. Very few, if any, will be running on "Jo Public's set track", whatever that is? If you go to the smaller shows, especially those which cater for the family/older market where the box shifters reign. Those who leave with box full of items, like good models that go round toy train curves. .......They will not buy an item which will not work on their layouts...... This model won't be going on sale from box shifters, at small local shows. ....Not to do so would restrict the market..... The market for this loco is already, deliberately limited. That's the whole point, surely? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted April 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 9, 2015 For the vast majority of models, I too think that there is a commercial imperative to make locos that will negotiate Radius 2 curves. I see so many enthusiasts who are still using Setrack curves and points, even if only on the hidden parts of their layouts. Limited series models such as the Stirling Single might be an exception. If Rapido can design it in such a way as to appeal to both markets (probably with an alternative front bogie), so much the better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 Unfortunately the more I look at pictures of the prototype the more difficult I see the task of making a good looking model in OO, or even maybe in EM. The wheels are very fine and OO/EM flanges would detract considerably. In terms of engineering the chassis perhaps the bogie should be weight-bearing on a fixed pivot to control the height and steer the front. The rear wheels should be fixed again to control the height and lateral position. The main driver will have to have enough lateral movement to negotiate radius 2 and a certain amount of vertical movement but be gently sprung downward. The main driver and the rear wheels will have to be geared for the drive.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Flangeless drivers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 Yes but would either have to be a wide enough tread not to fall between the rails, or only have upward movement.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Abel Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Revelation of Rapido's next model, the Stirling Single in the NRM, got me thinking about the likely limitations and compromises that making RTR locos capable of negotiating minimum radius curves involves. Clearances around the bogie are quite tight. This particular loco is likely to be a collector's/enthusiast's item not a train set engine and will be relatively expensive. For a loco of this quality and pedigree is it fair to expect Rapido to have to design in the ability to negotiate 18" or thereabout curves? My view is that there is room in the upper end of the RTR market for more accurate representations, clearly labelled to indicate say 36" or even 48" minimum curves. What do others think? Tough call - mine is a general response rather than specific to the Sterling Single as I've no particular interest there. Whilst I'd like to see something a little less compromising than the 438mm that Hornby stamp on many of their locos (18" is rather tight!) to allow for slightly better detail acceptance on the front end of some steam locos, I do understand the general situation that most folks don't have the space luxury to allow for wider curves, especially those UK based with smaller homes etc. Even for ME, where my layout is in a decent sized US basement, the main wall length where the terminus is located is 24ft, but the round-round portion is only about 12ft x 12ft and results in my minimum in a couple of tight spots being 26.5 inches - originally I intended to have a 30 minimum but couldn't accommodate even THAT! To that end I'd only be able to manage say 24inch minimum as a reasonable RTR standard, as 30 would still result in locos fouling. I've a couple of DJH locos that were built for me to 30in. minimum requirements, and have had to "adjust" the front steps which were fouling on the tightest sections although thankfully the chassis aren't tight enough to prevent running - I think for an RTR manufacturer, even for something rather limited/unique it could severely impact sales for those folks that would still want to occasionally run their prized up-market item. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 Part of the problem with steam locos with a front bogie or pony truck is that in RTR models it's completely non-functional and is just pushed (or pulled) - you could remove it and make no difference to the running as it does not control the front side-swing at all or take any weight! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Unfortunately the more I look at pictures of the prototype the more difficult I see the task of making a good looking model in OO, or even maybe in EM. The wheels are very fine and OO/EM flanges would detract considerably. In terms of engineering the chassis perhaps the bogie should be weight-bearing on a fixed pivot to control the height and steer the front. The rear wheels should be fixed again to control the height and lateral position. The main driver will have to have enough lateral movement to negotiate radius 2 and a certain amount of vertical movement but be gently sprung downward. The main driver and the rear wheels will have to be geared for the drive.... The Stirling single chassis may be built as an as an 0-6-2, and will then in OO get round fairly tight curves while still having the visual appearance of close fitting bogie splashers. (Whether it can be got down to R2 in that form, or whichever form the model mechanism is built; well, that's for Rapido to investigate.) On the more general question of minimum radius choice in OO, I believe the natural 'stopping off' points - pun intended - are the widely available RTR points from the Peco Streamline range with their average radii: 24" (small rad point, slips), 30" (curved), 36" (medium rad). The OO track gauge compromise makes 'everything possible' at 36" with relatively small exteriorly visible compromise. But as already mentioned, the average R2 radius of the set track point defines the RTR market in this country. Retailers I have spoken to over the years have left me in little doubt that this is the large majority of the existing customer base. It would be daring to market a model that couldn't go there. Hornby have exercised two compromises in their productions of 'challenging' locos to this end: an alternative bogie with underscale diameter wheelsets (good); leave the flanges off the rear truck wheelset (VERY BAD). Now we wait and see how Canada does it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Jackson Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 My sons Bachmann Emily manages 2nd radius curves easliy, however the Hornby pendolino doesn't and 3rd or greater is needed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Flangeless drivers? Not as daft as it might sound*. Sturrock's 4-2-2 no.215 was in some ways a forerunner of the Stirling singles and it had flangeless driving wheels. (*Taking the quoted comment as being made in jest - not intended to insult its originator). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 This is a topic in the On3/On30 world, where MMI 2-8-2 locos and some bogie rolling stock require curves of 30" plus. Yes, they look very good; yes, they require a lot of room. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 This is a topic in the On3/On30 world, where MMI 2-8-2 locos and some bogie rolling stock require curves of 30" plus. Yes, they look very good; yes, they require a lot of room. But bearing in mind that On3/On30 is 1/48th scale this would approximate 18" radius for OO. I have a Bachmann Forney 2-4-4 which does go around an 18" radius but the back end is so far off centre that it tips a boxcar almost off the track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Brasher Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 The Purbeck Model Railway Group has two 00 gauge two rail layouts. One has third radius curves and second radius points. Some ready to run Chinese built steam engines either derail or do not run well on this layout. The other layout has three foot radius curves and large radius Peco points and most if not all the locomotives run well on this layout. I would like to see all locomotives built to run properly on second radius curves. I have only got a width of about 4' for my 00 gauge layout in my flat and I can only take a small layout to an exhibition or a club night in my car so I am limited to third radius curves. I like fourth radius curves and I would like to see 2' radius curves in ready to run track as modern steam engines will run better on these. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Not as daft as it might sound*. Sturrock's 4-2-2 no.215 was in some ways a forerunner of the Stirling singles and it had flangeless driving wheels. (*Taking the quoted comment as being made in jest - not intended to insult its originator). Did not some broad gauge engines also have flangeless drivers? I'm thinking, particularly, of Bristol and Exeter 4-2-4 tank locos if memory serves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 The centre drivers on the BR class 9F 2-10-0 are flangeless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 The Purbeck Model Railway Group has two 00 gauge two rail layouts. One has third radius curves and second radius points. Some ready to run Chinese built steam engines either derail or do not run well on this layout. The other layout has three foot radius curves and large radius Peco points and most if not all the locomotives run well on this layout. I would like to see all locomotives built to run properly on second radius curves. I have only got a width of about 4' for my 00 gauge layout in my flat and I can only take a small layout to an exhibition or a club night in my car so I am limited to third radius curves. I like fourth radius curves and I would like to see 2' radius curves in ready to run track as modern steam engines will run better on these. I believe the smallest curve is 1st radius, 2nd being bigger, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.