Jump to content
 

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


sem34090
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Mikkel said:

 

On 24/02/2021 at 20:30, 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.

 

 

Thank you for the update; your findings are encouraging.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Interesting! What are your thoughts on reducing side play?

I hadn't thought about that yet!

 

I'm trying out 2mm brass washers to limit side play. A case of experimenting with spare AG wheels. These will best be replaced with 2mm I.D. tube once the connecting rods are fitted and road tested.

 

All things considered, I'm pleased that the conversion has turned out not to be complicated at all really, at least below the footplate. I will have no need to dismantle anything footplate and above which does look that it would be quite an involved affair!

 

20210225_201009.jpg.18777999e6bd1bd6be898dad04e35f37.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

...

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?

 

Difficult to know what to say, I sympathise enormously with the last paragraph but I'm seriously irritated that a product marketed by Model Rail, to which I subscribe, should be, by design, but I hope not by intention, be out of reach to the aspiring average modeller which I am. Seriously p!!!.

Still, there is a kit of this classes progenitor,  the 2021, available but I'd be delighted if someone at Model Rail could tell me why it is that white metal kit is more appropriate then their RTR offering.

There's something wrong here, chaps.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Difficult to know what to say, I sympathise enormously with the last paragraph but I'm seriously irritated that a product marketed by Model Rail, to which I subscribe, should be, by design, but I hope not by intention, be out of reach to the aspiring average modeller which I am. Seriously p!!!.

Still, there is a kit of this classes progenitor,  the 2021, available but I'd be delighted if someone at Model Rail could tell me why it is that white metal kit is more appropriate then their RTR offering.

There's something wrong here, chaps.

 

More out of curiosity than anything else, what is it that puts this model out of reach? 

 

If its price, then surely there can't be much difference once you have purchased the kit, wheels,motor and gears, never mind the time invested in assembling the bits. 

 

Rob. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, NHY 581 said:

 

More out of curiosity than anything else, what is it that puts this model out of reach? 

 

If its price, then surely there can't be much difference once you have purchased the kit, wheels,motor and gears, never mind the time invested in assembling the bits. 

 

Rob. 

Absolutely Rob, I’ve no idea what context out of reach means here.

 In addition I’d love to know what an ‘average modeller’ is too, how is that defined and how is it relevant to the purchase of a RTR locomotive?

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

 

More out of curiosity than anything else, what is it that puts this model out of reach? 

 

If its price, then surely there can't be much difference once you have purchased the kit, wheels,motor and gears, never mind the time invested in assembling the bits. 

 

Rob. 

I haven't mention price, that's a red herring. The context here is the complexity of the model preventing an average modeller, like me, converting it to EM/P4. It will be easier to build the white metal kit of the 2021 Class to EM/P4 than to attempt to convert the Rapido offering. The cost will be about the same, but I suspect even then the RTR will turn out to be more expensive, not that expense matters much in this hobby, which is always expensive. It's the nature of the beast.

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I haven't mention price, that's a red herring. The context here is the complexity of the model preventing an average modeller, like me, converting it to EM/P4. It will be easier to build the white metal kit of the 2021 Class to EM/P4 than to attempt to convert the Rapido offering. The cost will be about the same, but I suspect even then the RTR will turn out to be more expensive, not that expense matters much in this hobby, which is always expensive. It's the nature of the beast.

 

I see where your coming from Penrith , but I think the "average modeller" wont be converting it to EM/P4 but be quite happy with it in OO.   As such it seems to me this model is perfectly good , while agreeing it appears over complicated . 

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I haven't mention price, that's a red herring. The context here is the complexity of the model preventing an average modeller, like me, converting it to EM/P4. It will be easier to build the white metal kit of the 2021 Class to EM/P4 than to attempt to convert the Rapido offering. The cost will be about the same, but I suspect even then the RTR will turn out to be more expensive, not that expense matters much in this hobby, which is always expensive. It's the nature of the beast.

 

It might have been as well if you had qualified your original dismissal, to the effect that it only applied to those who wished to dispose of the chassis and fit an etched one. The situation might be annoying for you, and the minority of modellers who would wish to do so, but it is irrelevant to the vast majority of the target market for this model.

 

Those few who choose to depart from the mainstream can hardly expect the mass market to change its design choices, in order to accommodate their requirements, for the sake of a few additional sales.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

...

Those few who choose to depart from the mainstream can hardly expect the mass market to change its design choices, in order to accommodate their requirements, for the sake of a few additional sales.

 

John Isherwood.

But isn't that the very reason that why Cambridge Custom Transfers exists?

Edited by PenrithBeacon
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 

12 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

More out of curiosity than anything else, what is it that puts this model out of reach? 

 

 

10 hours ago, PMP said:

Absolutely Rob, I’ve no idea what context out of reach means here.

 In addition I’d love to know what an ‘average modeller’ is too, how is that defined and how is it relevant to the purchase of a RTR locomotive?

 

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The context here is the complexity of the model preventing an average modeller, like me, converting it to EM/P4.

 

1 hour ago, Legend said:

I think the "average modeller" wont be converting it to EM/P4 but be quite happy with it in OO.   As such it seems to me this model is perfectly good , while agreeing it appears over complicated 

 

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

The situation might be annoying for you, and the minority of modellers who would wish to do so, but it is irrelevant to the vast majority of the target market for this model

 

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

Those few who choose to depart from the mainstream can hardly expect the mass market to change its design choices, in order to accommodate their requirements, for the sake of a few additional sales

 

All of these comments are completely correct and all are 'fair enough', as I hope I made clear in my original rant last night.

 

In the overall scheme of things, my opinions are not important or significant, they are simply my personal opinions, but it is perhaps heartening for me, to see that there are others in the same tiny minority, who seem to share such views.

 

Since I posted my rant last night, I have been thinking some more about all this.

 

In society generally, most of us would probably not consider ourselves specialist or skilled enough to try tackling a repair on a washing machine, a computer or a motor vehicle (admittedly more folk probably in the latter camp who would have a go).

 

When it comes to smaller consumer goods, like microwave ovens, televisions, set-top satellite boxes, digital watches etc., the likelihood is that even more of us will simply throw the item away and buy a replacement. This is also the case with some larger 'white goods', like fridge freezers, which I am told that cannot be easily (?economically?) repaired and that you just have to replace them, when the originals become defective. This happened to us just before Christmas. The delivery men even take the old one away for you, all terribly convenient.

 

I know very little about washing machines, computers or motor vehicles and have to pay someone to undertake anything other than the most basic of routine checks, let alone serious maintenance and repairs.

 

And as we all know, devices these days are becoming so complex, that customers are increasingly discouraged from 'taking the back off' and attempting their own repair. In most cases now, such an action actually invalidates any warranty.

 

When it comes to model railways, my hobby of several decades, I do feel justified in considering myself a bit of a 'specialist', as I am sure many, many folk on here do as well. It's what we do as modellers, isn't it?

 

As such, I would like to think that I am able to feel a certain level of confidence when it comes to 'running repairs and maintenance' of my locos and rolling stock.

 

Back in the day for those of us 'over a certain age' (whatever that may be), it was a relatively simple matter if you wanted to change an X04 motor or perhaps re-solder a dodgy wire connection, or glue a buffer back on, that had broken off or even just remove the Triang chassis from the body, because you wanted to put it under a Wills whitemetal body kit.

 

Things got a little trickier with the advent of things like the Mainline split chassis but at least you could always simply remove the body at the turn of a couple of screws and replace a terminally defective chassis, whether an etched kit chassis or a replacement from the manufacturer themselves.

 

So, I know I'm not the first to say this, but it seems increasingly evident that current (and future?) manufacturers of RTR locos don't want us to even try tinkering with our new models. Rather, if there is a problem, we are encouraged to return it to the retailer or send it to a specialist at an 'authorised service centre' or the like.

 

It may just be an age thing (or it may just be me), but I find that I feel slightly resentful of this, when it comes to my chosen hobby, in which I have invested so many years of emotional and actual energy.

 

On the other hand, I am nonetheless extremely grateful to Model Rail for commissioning such a generally good-looking model and to Rapido for providing me with a nicely running example. Without them, we'd not have an RTR 16XX yet and who knows when someone else might have produced one?

 

And at least the news from Re6/6's workbench continues to be positive and very encouraging.

 

Thinking about it, perhaps my disappointment is due to the level of anticipation I felt prior to the release of this model. Maybe I should temper such anticipation in future.

 

All in all, I don't feel too discouraged. I think I will probably get another one of these for conversion to P4. I'll either follow the path shown by Re6/6 or will dismantle the loco as far as I need to and just use it as a 'kit of parts' to obtain a body, under which I can put the NuCast Partners chassis.

 

If you have got this far, thank you for reading and sorry to have taken up so much of your time. If you haven't read this far and are just skim-reading, then don't worry, you've not missed much. ;)

 

Edited by Captain Kernow
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Round of applause 1
  • Friendly/supportive 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

There is one other matter, though, which I hope either Chris Leigh or Andy from Rapido can address.

 

Is the reason for the front tension lock coupling housing being set so far forward connected with the fact that the drive is on the leading axle? The gap between the loco and any wagons or coaches is, quite simply, absurdly large for a modern, 2021 RTR loco. Several folk have cleverly adapted couplings to get round this, but why should they have to do this?

 

Following on from that, why is the drive on the front axle? This is the first steam outline model that I've ever seen this on. My suspicion is that it is like this, simply in order to leave space for the firebox 'glow' in the cab, is that the case, please?

 

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

1 hour ago, Captain Kernow said:

There is one other matter, though, which I hope either Chris Leigh or Andy from Rapido can address.

 

Is the reason for the front tension lock coupling housing being set so far forward connected with the fact that the drive is on the leading axle? The gap between the loco and any wagons or coaches is, quite simply, absurdly large for a modern, 2021 RTR loco. Several folk have cleverly adapted couplings to get round this, but why should they have to do this?

 

Following on from that, why is the drive on the front axle? This is the first steam outline model that I've ever seen this on. My suspicion is that it is like this, simply in order to leave space for the firebox 'glow' in the cab, is that the case, please?

 

to get around the long coupling i did this to mine 

50962636232_ce0afd4136_c.jpg2021-02-20_02-36-27 by brian mosby, on Flickr

  • Like 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Kernow said:

My suspicion is that it is like this, simply in order to leave space for the firebox 'glow' in the cab, is that the case, please?

 

'Firebox glow' is rtr flavour of the month. Punters are alleged to want it, even when told that engines normally run with firebox doors closed. I agree with you that cabs have become too inviolable recently, and have affected transmission architectures.

 

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

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

'Firebox glow' is rtr flavour of the month

 

Mind you it's probably a bonus if you're running it in a cold garage ! :lol:

 

Toasty !

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

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

'Firebox glow' is rtr flavour of the month. Punters are alleged to want it, even when told that engines normally run with firebox doors closed. I agree with you that cabs have become too inviolable recently, and have affected transmission architectures

Thanks for that.

 

Whilst it's 'nice' to see lots of in-cab detail, once the crew are in place, it's usually almost impossible to make out anything other than the vaguest of detail on some locos, such as most GW pannier tanks.

 

There is nothing more important for me about a model loco than smooth and consistent running. Everything else pales besides this. If the transmission needs to occupy part of the cab space, when I am planning a High Level gearbox, for example, then that is the priority over appearance. That's one reason why portly drivers are so useful!

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Day everyone,

I thought as an antidote to all the "heavy engineering" in posts during the last few days, I would post my views and some pictures from "an average modeller".

I am not into, but admire the skill of those who are into the nuts and bolts!

 

So here are some shots of my newly arrived 16xx.

This example is 1627 (weathered), which spent some time allocated to Oxford, so might have worked to the Wycombe area (where my model is set), direct or been sent to Aylesbury shed on "loan".

First shot from the rear tackles the bunker seam controversy. I think it is ok in the weathered version?

Apologies for the modern "box" in the background, but in mitigation, Mallard is lurking in the left background!

 

1656209379_paulphoto16xx-1.jpg.fdef6ddd4d5a1586d0512cd6005528ae.jpg

 

Second shot shows one side, and I think the weathering is nice. Not too thick but nicely workaday?

 

1882716302_paulphoto16xx-2.jpg.2420e8a92903d702192177e74d953431.jpg

 

The third shot, half front on, is somewhat spoilt by the bright day light through my Railway Room Door, but we mustn't grumble about a bright day this time of year.

 

2049180040_paulphoto16xx-3.jpg.8257378b509b87e5f4611c6115f56efb.jpg

 

The layout was completely turned off while I took these photos, as I can't operate her on the layout yet until her DCC chip is sorted out, but I have run her on my short DC test track and she goes well.

 

Hope you are all well and modelling progressing?

Best regards

Paul

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Apologies to Paul and others for one last return to the 16xx deconstruction on my part. Since I started it here I will show developments today which sort of conclude the first chapter. I'll then move to my own workbench thread.  

 

Not getting anywhere with the remaining visible screws I decided that the answer must lie within the front gear box. Having tried numerous ways of prising off the plastic cover, I eventually made three small cuts to remove it:

 

IMG_20210226_170819483_HDR.jpg.917de644b2966bd028077fcf6f8ea353.jpg.f86faf33886d4c268302cecebc2b7fcc.jpg

 

 

This exposed the worm, which could then be gently lifted upwards and undone from the rest of the drive:

 

IMG_20210226_171016812_HDR.jpg.1f3a6e523a90bb3968a80768ee52b34d.jpg.beacddf81706dd1d6bf769b98ce76c04.jpg

 

 

This in turn allowed the motor to be folded back, by first turning it gently to one side and then gently lifting it backwards. Lo and behold, two screws holding the weight block to the chassis block appeared:

 

IMG_20210226_171434215.jpg.ab391c123610d7f03595d185b46373af.jpg.aa03c2553a14ce374d5ebc0b21d3efd2.jpg

 

 

The weight block was still stuck at the front end, however. After much head scratching I noticed that one sandbox was wonky:

 

IMG_20210226_173045398_HDR.jpg.33c54c96adfdd34a2d0b007afd5669dc.jpg.714d76c028c4c8c069a87331665f76ff.jpg

 

 

Pulling it off revealed a secret screw each side, joining the weight block and chassis:

 

IMG_20210226_173101481_HDR.jpg.d29456b6b5555699fdb032226fe67cd0.jpg.cd543ab487676deeb8d088799b081690.jpg

 

 

Undoing these screws finally allowed me to remove the weight block:

 

IMG_20210226_173548702_HDR.jpg.09358481818c406e41085ff4ab93d7b7.jpg.465f8f0e6fbc188f183e0e5904336725.jpg

 

 

This reveals the inside motion, which can just be seen when the loco is assembled:

 

IMG_20210226_181749408_HDR.jpg.be01e25b0890760c0d514ff62594408e.jpg.0d508847d2b627df069d987e3f26d42b.jpg

 

 

A small board is fitted to the weight block, but like most of the parts it is a push-fit on pins, rather than glued in place - and so could be easily removed:

 

IMG_20210226_173447413_HDR.jpg.f08dc470d3aedde9a77e99a3a39c2828.jpg.ae7f7e4164b34d4b1ecf5769cc6ed4ea.jpg

 

 

With the weight block removed,  a major obstacle for my 2021 ST conversion is out of the way, but others await. First step is to consider whether to build a whole new boiler and a bed for the drive, or retain the weight block and saw away the offending parts.

 

IMG_20210226_173647084_HDR.jpg.78bffddaae10f5876fdd213895e1dbd1.jpg.c39cc59e8fcb40bcb5d0379562bde339.jpg

 

Then there's the question of the circuit board, which is rather wide. But that's another story and not for this thread. 

 

Edited by Mikkel
  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 5
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
  • Round of applause 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 26/02/2021 at 11:36, Captain Kernow said:

There is one other matter, though, which I hope either Chris Leigh or Andy from Rapido can address.

 

Is the reason for the front tension lock coupling housing being set so far forward connected with the fact that the drive is on the leading axle? The gap between the loco and any wagons or coaches is, quite simply, absurdly large for a modern, 2021 RTR loco. Several folk have cleverly adapted couplings to get round this, but why should they have to do this?

 

Following on from that, why is the drive on the front axle? This is the first steam outline model that I've ever seen this on. My suspicion is that it is like this, simply in order to leave space for the firebox 'glow' in the cab, is that the case, please?

 

I understand that it was a design issue so one that Rapido would need to answer although I wonder if there would have been room for a flywheel if the drive had been on the centre axle.  I don't think we should overlook the fact that steam outline models are a relatively new string to Rapido's bow and the 16XX is, I think, the first one to use coupling rods to transmit motion to some of the wheelsets.  It's going to be educational to see how they tackle the 15XX after this starting point.

 

I wonder if the problem with contemporary manufacture not catering for easy gauge conversion is really a consequence of ever increasing sophistication in design and overall appearance while trying to get reliable performance in the mass market gauge?  As the good Captain has noted once upon a time it was all very much simpler - you took the average Triang/Triang Hornby chassis and threw away the wheels and axless, bushed the side frames down to take Romford (or Hamblings axles and then used their wheels plus adding a new gear wheel to end up with wheels that looked the business instead of like something from the toy shop.  

 

But the market wanted something much better straight out of the box and that is what we now have plus it also has to suit Chinese production methods and meet mass market price demands. Sso something has had to give and I somewhat doubt that the average Chinese designer has ever heard of 1/8th diameter axles (he uses what he's used to and can get easily) let alone EM gauge let alone P4.  He designs what he's asked to design plus whatever allowances ghe can incorporate if the spec includes provision for a wider gauge conversion sometime (if it can be physically tooled).

 

I'm not excusing anything but , like it or not, we live in a different world nowadays. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 6
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Overly complex design costs and this will come out of Model Rail's profit margin. If indeed this model has been designed by the producing factory then they are squids in! Actually I think it's probably designed by Rapido and this issue ought to have been picked up by internal design reviews. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I understand that it was a design issue so one that Rapido would need to answer 

Or a failure to understand NEM specs, Dapol being being equally guilty with the Bogie Bolster/Turbot, and in situations where space is too limited for a NEM 362 to be sensibly fitted then a NEM 363 mount be used instead. In terms of UK models only ViTrains have done that. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
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...