Jump to content
 

Model Rail announce GWR Class 1600 0-6-0PT via Rapido


sem34090
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Yes, some potentially very serious hacking. Haven't decided whether it's worth it yet. A lovely slow runner though.

 

Not sure about the gearbox arrangement yet. Here is the exploded diagram (numbers refer to part numbers, no designation of each part). Apologies for the photo quality, the diagram is printed very small.

 

 

 

 

IMG_20210224_062637003_HDR.jpg.a6e5413184a15c42df73a898e9880e47.jpg

Edited by Mikkel
  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 6
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Yes, some potentially very serious hacking. Haven't decided whether it's worth it yet. A lovely slow runner though.

 

Not sure about the gearbox arrangement yet. Here is the exploded diagram (numbers refer to part numbers, no designation of each part). Apologies for the photo quality, the diagram is printed very small.

 

IMG_20210224_062637003_HDR.jpg.a6e5413184a15c42df73a898e9880e47.jpg

 

 

 

Now THAT is an exploded diagram of a Rapido 1600...

 

Or...a diagram of an exploded Rapido 1600. 

 

 

Cool. 

 

 

Rob. 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Model Rail sold it, Model Rail has failed to provide any obvious way to contact them to deal with it.

 

 

Not disputing that, just pointing out that a blanket "return to Kernow" isn't a very helpful response from Model Rail for many problems that could be solved without a return, particularly for those who will be out a significant amount of money (and time from hassle dealing with customs paperwork) to return the item from outside the UK.

 

Nope. Kernow have sold it.

 

If I buy one, my contract* is with Model Rail Offers which is part of Kernow's contract with Model Rail. My contract isn't with Rapido or Bauer.

 

If I buy a pair of training shoes do I return them to Sports Direct, Adidas or a sweatshop in India? I doubt the later two would be pleased to see a pair of trainers turn up in the post.

 

White goods may be different as you need to have a "man with a van" to collect it. I would also expect them to be able to do basic repairs and testing. That's why my example was a kettle which is a small disposable item.

 

 

*For want of a better word. Can't be bothered looking up the correct term and all the relevant paperwork I have about it is in the shop.

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Steamport Southport said:

 

Nope. Kernow have sold it.

 

If I buy one, my contract* is with Model Rail Offers which is part of Kernow's contract with Model Rail. My contract isn't with Rapido or Bauer.

 

If I buy a pair of training shoes do I return them to Sports Direct, Adidas or a sweatshop in India? I doubt the later two would be pleased to see a pair of trainers turn up in the post.

 

White goods may be different as you need to have a "man with a van" to collect it. I would also expect them to be able to do basic repairs and testing. That's why my example was a kettle which is a small disposable item.

 

 

*For want of a better word. Can't be bothered looking up the correct term and all the relevant paperwork I have about it is in the shop.

 

 

Jason

Yet when I called to pay for my 16XX i asked if I could use my Kernow credit and was told "no" as it is Model Rail.

 

I suspect Kernow are just "hosting" and providing payment processing, with my contract being with Model rail.

 

As they have indicated above Rapido UK are in the process of setting up a UK Spares and Warranty hub.

 

In terms of your trainers I think it would be more similar to returning them to the Franchise or do I return them to the UK supplier?

 

My experience of white goods nowadays would be "have a new one and well store the old one for a few months in case it is a systemic problem, then we'll throw it away".

 

Luke

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Based on Mikkel's information kindly provided, it seems that the option of 'replacing the RTR chassis' with the new NuCast Partners etched one, for those who wish to convert to EM or P4, is not going to be a straightforward option.

 

This looks to be an extremely cleverly designed model. My OO one runs just fine, so it's staying OO, it runs far too well to consider messing with the chassis etc. As for whether I get another one, for converting to P4, I'm not so sure now.

 

I just hope that this design doesn't turn out to be too clever for those of us who like to be able to take things apart and put them back together again.

 

  • Agree 5
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 24/02/2021 at 19:26, Butler Henderson said:

Looks to me the weight has a couple of downward prongs at the front end which presumably fit into the chassis and will possibly need releasing to remove it

 

 

Yes, that may be it. It's tricky stuff though, everything is a nice tight fit and there is no obvious place to attack. I tried access from underneath today, removing the keeper plate. The chassis itself is also metal, not plastic as it looks from the side. The wheelset can't immediately be lifted out.

 

 

932781896_IMG_20210224_203429894_HDR(1).jpg.c43bd7c5c35a7353cad9cf83a7e2d986.jpg.b7c3d7b178cbe5499cf8e2077e46e5f6.jpg

 

1192660343_IMG_20210224_203531219_HDR(1).jpg.438424f74f86e8b15442e4e9b95aeaf6.jpg.f79ca9ba1d9f32fd75a9e51f58de8b60.jpg

 

 

Edited by Mikkel
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

The wheelset can't immediately be lifted out.

 

From your photograph it looks (at least to my un-trained eye) like the wheel set would lift out. I wonder what is holding it in place? I was hoping that an EM Gauge Wheelset would be drop-in replacement.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Part of me wonders what prompted the decision to put the geared drive to the front axle instead of the middle or rear since its responsible for the rather far forward positioning of the coupling mount and the design of the motor having a relatively long (for a small tank engine) driveshaft to actually connect the motor with the gears.

 

Makes me curious of the benefit.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Based on Mikkel's information kindly provided, it seems that the option of 'replacing the RTR chassis' with the new NuCast Partners etched one, for those who wish to convert to EM or P4, is not going to be a straightforward option.

 

This looks to be an extremely cleverly designed model. My OO one runs just fine, so it's staying OO, it runs far too well to consider messing with the chassis etc. As for whether I get another one, for converting to P4, I'm not so sure now.

 

I just hope that this design doesn't turn out to be too clever for those of us who like to be able to take things apart and put them back together again.

 

Thanks for that, it looks like a pass then. :huh:

Pity

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Kaput said:

Part of me wonders what prompted the decision to put the geared drive to the front axle instead of the middle or rear since its responsible for the rather far forward positioning of the coupling mount and the design of the motor having a relatively long (for a small tank engine) driveshaft to actually connect the motor with the gears.

 

Makes me curious of the benefit.

Judge by the photo posted by Mikkal 23 Feb the motor is too far forward to drive the middle wheel and would be too visible from the side to drive the rear. Separate matter if the existing NEM 362 socket was removed would a Vi Trains  NEM 363 tension lock coupling fit in the mount that holds the 362?

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 25/02/2021 at 15:52, Butler Henderson said:

Judge by the photo posted by Mikkal 23 Feb the motor is too far forward to drive the middle wheel and would be too visible from the side to drive the rear.

 

Yes, I think you have a point there. 

 

On 24/02/2021 at 21:30, Pannier Tank said:

From your photograph it looks (at least to my un-trained eye) like the wheel set would lift out. I wonder what is holding it in place? I was hoping that an EM Gauge Wheelset would be drop-in replacement.

 

There may still be hope. Today I took the tip of a screwdriver and prised the axles upwards. The front one with the gears was a bit difficult but it came off eventually, seemingly without damage.

 

IMG_20210225_154307835.jpg.6bfc67eb1f562c123c85ca877a1b7bd4.jpg.99a46409306e4af1089ec9a8b13d9b0b.jpg

 

 

IMG_20210225_154918507_HDR.jpg.f5684d216dbfe3ebbf86a07c3305a9ad.jpg.6dc18e67020fca9d8663e5fbaf6caa46.jpg

 

 

The view below shows the springs for the center axle, a principle also used on the Bachmann panniers:

 

IMG_20210225_155432651_HDR.jpg.9e2986d6ffbd6c57a2110d8bb8ed9e11.jpg.56f95c98b1cdb91f980679a8bb857b79.jpg

 

 

Removing the couplings (sorry, I don't know anything about Kadees, so can't say what else would fit) reveals this screw. However it revolves without coming out, so it needs a bit of thinking. But slowly she yields 🙂

 

IMG_20210225_155056056_HDR.jpg.70231dba4b52d935c419371f019de668.jpg.1dc1d50778ba518d0d0e114711a6cb84.jpg

 

Edited by Mikkel
  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/02/2021 at 05:36, Mikkel said:

Yes, some potentially very serious hacking. Haven't decided whether it's worth it yet. A lovely slow runner though.

 

Not sure about the gearbox arrangement yet. Here is the exploded diagram (numbers refer to part numbers, no designation of each part). Apologies for the photo quality, the diagram is printed very small.

 

IMG_20210224_062637003_HDR.jpg.a6e5413184a15c42df73a898e9880e47.jpg

 

 

Judging by this drawing, the design of the chassis is grossly overcomplicated,  the designer hasn't heard of the KISS principle at all. This is important because with complication comes unreliability and excessive cost. Definitely one to pass by.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Judging by this drawing, the design of the chassis is grossly overcomplicated,  the designer hasn't heard of the KISS principle at all. This is important because with complication comes unreliability and excessive cost. Definitely one to pass by.

 

I think that is very harsh. I think we should welcome designers spending more time focusing on the chassis - it's a welcome change compared to some rtr offerings.

 

Generally, rtr chassis are designed to go together reasonably easily. They are not designed to be taken apart easily.

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Judging by this drawing, the design of the chassis is grossly overcomplicated,  the designer hasn't heard of the KISS principle at all. This is important because with complication comes unreliability and excessive cost. Definitely one to pass by.

 

A sweeping dismissal by someone who has only seen a sketch of the subject!

 

An opinion "to pass by".

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said:

 The only oddity I can see is the use of stub axles.

I thought at first that they were, but they aren't. They're normal axles but unusually 2mm diameter.

 

Conversion to P4 is going well so far. Relieving of the insides of the splashers in the fore and aft axle positions was needed first.

 

A test fitting of the Ultrascale LNER  4' 1¼"12 spoke wheels (a slight compromise that I can live with) fitted with 2mm > 1/8th bushes has been done. 

 

20210225_164649.jpg.71b36a7ff3dfa148bf25f9ac68769028.jpg

 

The replacement sprung pick-up pins are the next thing to work on. I'll report on progress in due course.  All in all it's a well designed bit of engineering, at least as far as gauge conversion is concerned. 

 

20210223_173745.jpg.12ebc06db8e97a92a3b9ca98f1e5ab6c.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/02/2021 at 14:19, Gopher said:

Mine arrived today.  Unfortunately dead as a doornail on DC and DCC.  So back it has gone.

 

It looks a lovely model, and the bunker seam is not too evident to my eyes.  Nice heavy model, looking forward to getting a replacement   

Replacement arrived today (thanks Kernow).  Runs well, and getting better as I run it in .  Sound decoder installed with Jamie Goodman's Pannier sounds.  Not sure if there is a huge difference between a 57xx sound and 16xx sound - especially in 4mm.  Anyway I like the sounds, and I like this model.  So easy to take the body off, to install a decoder and crew.  So once run in, the model will be weathered, lamps and coal added and Hardy's Hobbies crew installed.  I'll be interested to see if anyone installs a bigger speaker.      

 

 Well done Rapido and thanks to Model Rail for commissioning the model.          

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Re6/6 said:

I thought at first that they were, but they aren't. They're normal axles but unusually 2mm diameter.

 

Conversion to P4 is going well so far. Relieving of the insides of the splashers in the fore and aft axle positions was needed first.

 

A test fitting of the Ultrascale LNER  4' 1¼"12 spoke wheels (a slight compromise that I can live with) fitted with 2mm > 1/8th bushes has been done. 

 

20210225_164649.jpg.71b36a7ff3dfa148bf25f9ac68769028.jpg

 

The replacement sprung pick-up pins are the next thing to work on. I'll report on progress in due course.  All in all it's a well designed bit of engineering, at least as far as gauge conversion is concerned. 

 

20210223_173745.jpg.12ebc06db8e97a92a3b9ca98f1e5ab6c.jpg

Interesting! What are your thoughts on reducing side play?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

 

I think that is very harsh. I think we should welcome designers spending more time focusing on the chassis - it's a welcome change compared to some rtr offerings.

 

Generally, rtr chassis are designed to go together reasonably easily. They are not designed to be taken apart easily.

 

Ok but we have two very experienced modellers here taking this model apart and I can't help but wonder how the 'average modeller ' would cope.

Also, what arrangements have been made for after sales servicing. In my experience both Bachmann and Hornby products come apart easily and are supported by professionals and (usually) spare parts while here seems to be controversy over where a defective model should be returned. 

Having said that I'm enjoying,  in a positive sense, seeing the dismantling of the model and I might yet change my mind. :D

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Butler Henderson said:

It would be interesting to see other models split down to their individual parts as  much. Hornby in comparison would have all the body parts as one item for example. The only oddity I can see is the use of stub axles.

 

Coupling wise for those using TLs this is what I was thinking of

 

 

VT TLX.jpg


i trimmed both the pocket and the coupling..


048BED94-00F0-4D42-B3D6-2BFF059CA64B.jpeg.95249e636876493b0803e61680f35524.jpeg


went from this..

8DFB6D1E-0E53-497C-87E0-607A150137B2.jpeg.a7a193578c2d1f8b63325033b23e8d6c.jpeg
 

to this..

AEDE3AB7-FCA7-4BE9-BD39-9A7426A50507.jpeg.fcfee7da8afd3620c9ec9af3d3464d37.jpeg
admittedly I need to do the same with the coach ;-)

 

but its a staggering 7mm shorter ! 5 off the coupling, 2 off the pocket... still push fit, but I could trim the shape of a coupling to match the pocket socket like your example.

 

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Judging by this drawing, the design of the chassis is grossly overcomplicated

I actually agree with this, although my comments which follow are not aimed at those who do not wish to 'tinker' with their models (for whatever reason, which is fair enough). The vast majority of folk can ignore the remarks which follow, because they mostly apply to those who model in EM or P4.

 

But as far as those of us who do wish to convert it to EM or P4, in my view, this 16XX is a bit of a nightmare.

 

My good friend Re6/6 is blazing the trail for P4 and is making good time and doing an excellent job, but it shouldn't have to be so complicated. I'm very grateful to him for having the sheer brass neck to dismantle his brand new model and show us how this can be done. I doubt that I would have thought of doing it like that myself.

 

With RTR steam locos, there can be reasons (and believe me, I've been there a number of times), where the RTR chassis or mechanism just doesn't cut the mustard and will need to be changed.

 

On a positive note, this 16XX is really good to look at and captures the essence of the prototype really well. In that regard, it has much in common with another 'modern' RTR loco, the Hattons-DJM 14XX.

 

However, both feature mechanisms which are, to my 'old school' eyes, excessively complicated for the job they have to do.

 

In neither case, can someone like myself, who wishes to substitute the RTR chassis with an etched chassis kit when converting to P4, simply take the body off and install a replacement chassis, with a new motor and gearbox.

 

I thought that the Hattons-DJM 14XX was bad enough, in that you have to either dismantle the body sections to remove the horrid little coreless motor, it's plastic cradle and the surrounding mazak block (in order to create room for your replacement motor and gearbox) or you have to take a Dremel with an aggressive tool, to grind the mazak block away.

 

With this 16XX, it's not even that 'simple'. Quite apart from almost completely dismantling the body and the motor from its cast block, you would then need to cut the cast block up into separate smokebox and firebox segments (I'm referring to part 112 on the Rapido diagram shown earlier on this thread), in order to get a viable body to attach your new chassis to. And even then, the chunkiness of the cast firebox area in part 112 seems to preclude it's use without further mazak removal. So it would be out with the Dremel again or even fabricate replacement firebox sides, to go between the pannier tanks and the footplate.

 

What this 16XX does have going for it, though, is that it has a much better motor than the Hattons-DJM abomination, it drives the other two axles via the coupling rods as any proper locomotive should do (ie. it's not a glorified diesel motor bogie like the 14XX), the wheel profiles are finer, the back-to-backs are correct and it has a sprung centre axle. All good points and to Model Rail-Rapido's credit. Generally, it seems, they also run a whole lot better (on DC, can't comment on DCC) than the 14XX. Mine certainly does. I found I had no choice on my 14XX but to install a completely new (Perseverance) chassis, just to keep it running as an OO model. At least I don't have to do that for the 16XX.

 

So, I'm wondering if this really is the shape of things to come? Does it have to be like this?

 

Well, no it doesn't!

 

Let's look at another contemporary, very recent RTR steam loco, the Bachmann 94XX. In terms of looks, this model is right up there with this 16XX and the Hattons-DJM 14XX.

 

But, it features the traditional separation of body and chassis, whereby the replacement of the Bachmann chassis with (say) a High Level chassis is pretty straightforward (OK, the High Level chassis wasn't specifically designed for this new model, but I bet it won't require too much fettling to get it to fit, if any).

 

I would be so interested to understand the reasons why the Bachmann design and the Rapido designs are so different, but I doubt that we will ever know. Both deliver really good-looking and well running locos, which is great if you are an OO modeller (see, I said that for most of you this was nothing to worry about ;)), but it makes the life of the EM and P4 modeller a lot harder, unnecessarily in my view, in the case of the 16XX.

 

Well, if you've got this far, thanks for reading. Glad to get that off my chest. I know that such sentiments as I've expressed above are completely irrelevant to the vast, vast majority of those who will be buying this 16XX, because as has been said many, many times already, EM and P4 modellers are a tiny, insignificant portion of the overall market for RTR OO models.

 

And in any case, I'm glad that someone has produced a ready-to-run 16XX pannier tank. Who'd have thought it, a few years ago?

 

Edited by Captain Kernow
  • Like 6
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
  • Round of applause 1
  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...