Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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 2
  • Round of applause 1
  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
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
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
On 24/02/2021 at 20:04, Mikkel said:

 

The wheelset can't immediately be lifted out.

 

Fear not Mikkel.  A gentle prising up and they will come out readily.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Round of applause 2
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
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
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
36 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

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

 

Not sure that I follow that - could you elucidate, please?

 

Thanks,

John Isherwood.

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

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.