Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

IMG_20210226_173045398_HDR.jpg.33c54c96adfdd34a2d0b007afd5669dc.jpg

 

 

... a secret screw each side, joining the weight block and chassis.

 

IMG_20210226_173101481_HDR.jpg.d29456b6b5555699fdb032226fe67cd0.jpg

 

 

Undoing these finally allowed me to remove the weight block.

 

IMG_20210226_173548702_HDR.jpg.09358481818c406e41085ff4ab93d7b7.jpg

 

 

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

 

IMG_20210226_181749408_HDR.jpg.be01e25b0890760c0d514ff62594408e.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

 

 

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

 

IMG_20210226_173647084_HDR.jpg.78bffddaae10f5876fdd213895e1dbd1.jpg

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

I think with the right figure placement, firebox glow can be quite effective.

 

 

It also reflects through the windows when viewing from different angles:

 

 

Whilst I was originally sceptical, I quite like it! 

  • Like 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 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
51 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

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. 

 

I refer my honourable friend to my earlier response to his original statement.

 

I strongly doubt that the achieved level of 'out-of-the-box' detail and running capability could have been achieved with a less complex design - no capable designer would introduce needless complexity.

 

What my honourable friend wishes for is a less detailed / capable design for the majority of purchasers, so that he can more easily throw away the most expensive part of the model in order to spend more money achieving the niche result that he desires.

 

I'm afraid that I cannot characterise that stance as being reasonable.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Agree 4
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
46 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I refer my honourable friend to my earlier response to his original statement.

 

I strongly doubt that the achieved level of 'out-of-the-box' detail and running capability could have been achieved with a less complex design - no capable designer would introduce needless complexity.

 

What my honourable friend wishes for is a less detailed / capable design for the majority of purchasers, so that he can more easily throw away the most expensive part of the model in order to spend more money achieving the niche result that he desires.

 

I'm afraid that I cannot characterise that stance as being reasonable.

 

John Isherwood.

Hi John,

 

I don't answer on David's behalf here, but I would respectfully draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that Messrs Bachmann have only just produced a model to rival the fidelity and sophistication of the 16XX, but have done so in a way that permits unreasonable folk like me ;) to take it's top off.

 

I would also draw your Honourable Personage's attention to the fact that I did most unambiguously say that such views were indeed representative of a tiny niche only, really rather insignificant and unimportant and with no pretence of being reasonable whatsoever!

 

But I will say it again, I am very grateful to Model Rail and Rapido for choosing the 16XX for their project. Even converting one to P4 in the matter that Re6/6 is so bravely doing is quicker than building the whitemetal kit!

 

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

Hi John,

 

...

Even converting one to P4 in the matter that Re6/6 is so bravely doing is quicker than building the whitemetal kit!

 

But it requires a very much lower skill level, this is important to P4 modellers like me who aren't master craftsmen. 

In an earlier post you alluded to white goods being, quite often, throwaway items once they need repair. I suspect that this is the first British outline RTR model that will conform to that paradigm. I doubt if any professional model repairer would want to quote for taking this apart and repairing it. Assuming, of course, that spare parts will be avaliable. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

this is important to P4 modellers like me who aren't master craftsmen. 

 

David, I'm definitely not a master craftsman by any stretch of the imagination .....more a master bodger!

 

This conversion really is turning out to be straightforward (so far!) due to the excellent design of the parts below the running plate, (above it, I make no comment!) What is not so straightforward are my engineering skills. I'm just an 'average modeller' taking my time and planning each operation very slowly, thinking two steps ahead before doing anything. I don't want to ruin a lovely but expensive model for a lack of thought!

 

The current job is quartering the bushed Ultrascale wheels So far so good!

  • Like 4
  • Round of applause 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Hi John,

 

I don't answer on David's behalf here, but I would respectfully draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that Messrs Bachmann have only just produced a model to rival the fidelity and sophistication of the 16XX, but have done so in a way that permits unreasonable folk like me ;) to take it's top off.

 

I would also draw your Honourable Personage's attention to the fact that I did most unambiguously say that such views were indeed representative of a tiny niche only, really rather insignificant and unimportant and with no pretence of being reasonable whatsoever!

 

But I will say it again, I am very grateful to Model Rail and Rapido for choosing the 16XX for their project. Even converting one to P4 in the matter that Re6/6 is so bravely doing is quicker than building the whitemetal kit!

 

 

Coincidenally enough, I have just descended from my workshop - known to SWMBO as 'The Play Room' - where I was applying etched plates and real coal to the 16XX, and coal to the 94XX; they are now standing adjacent to each other on the test track.

 

Having been unable to resist the temptation to trundle a few recently-built wagons up and down the tracks and admire the latest loco acquistions, I have to concede that they might easily have come from the same factory. Nonetheless, I feel that the 16XX has the edge where fidelity, sophistication and running qualities are concerned.

 

As a confirmed OO Luddite, the 16XX does all and more than I could wish - with the sole exception of the front coupling arrangements. Fortunately for me, I use the Peco / Hornby Dublo Simplex coupler, and I have managed to fit this in such a way that it is optimally located in relation to the buffer faces.

 

I have no problems whatsoever with those who choose to adapt RTR items for P4; I just felt that an outright dismissal on the basis of the exploded diagram in the instructions was a tad 'tetchy'.

 

John Isherwood.

Edited by cctransuk
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
30 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Coincidenally enough, I have just descended from my workshop - known to SWMBO as 'The Play Room' - where I was applying etched plates and real coal to the 16XX, and coal to the 94XX; they are now standing adjacent to each other on the test track.

 

Having been unable to resist the temptation to trundle a few recently-built wagons up and down the tracks and admire the latest loco acquistions, I have to concede that they might easily have come from the same factory. Nonetheless, I feel that the 16XX has the edge where fidelity, sophistication and running qualities are concerned.

 

As a confirmed OO Luddite, the 16XX does all and more than I could wish - with the sole exception of the front coupling arrangements. Fortunately for me, I use the Peco / Hornby Dublo Simplex coupler, and I have managed to fit this in such a way that it is optimally located in relation to the buffer faces.

 

I have no problems whatsoever with those who choose to adapt RTR items for P4; I just felt that an outright dismissal on the basis of the exploded diagram in the instructions was a tad 'tetchy'.

 

John Isherwood.

And that of course is what it is all about.  The majority market - by a massive margin - for UK outline models is 00 and if a company wishes to make a profit that is the market it will go for if it gets involved in r-t-r.   Similarly as the overwhelming majority of British outline 00 models are made in China, wherever they happen to be designed, the parts which go into them will be what is available in China.    The result with the 16XX appears to be a generally rather good 00 model of a 16XX with only the front coupling being a visible (but solvable) blot on the landscape - in other words the commissioner, designer, and factory have largely succeeded in what they set out to do.

 

If what in all honesty is a pretty small minority want something which is easy to convert to P4. (so perhaps spoiling 'RE6/6s fun and experimentation in the process) will the additional sales to them meet the effect of the higher prices that making that simpler process by outnumbering lost sales at the non 'easy convert price' with new sales to the easy to convert market?    If someone is so sure that then they have only to 'do an SLW' with a steam outline loco commission in order to prove everybody else wrong all you need is something way in excess of £100,000 (or prepaid advance orders to create that necessary capital) and off you go.  But if you are prepared to risk that sort of money are you equally prepared to allow the possibility of a hundred or so 'convertible' models reducing your market for plain vanilla 00 sales?   I suspect one's approach  might be a bit different if you are risking your own or your employer's money rather than telling someone else how to spend theirs (but I may be wrong on that)?

 

BTW there are plenty of factories in China looking for model railway commission work so there should be no dfficulty proving everyone else is wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cctransuk said:


Coincidenally enough, I have just descended from my workshop - known to SWMBO as 'The Play Room' -

Haha.....mine is called the playroom also, but I get my own back when Mrs BB wants to watch a film as the “cinema room” is in the same space :lol:

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

If what in all honesty is a pretty small minority want something which is easy to convert to P4. (so perhaps spoiling 'RE6/6s fun and experimentation in the process) will the additional sales to them meet the effect of the higher prices that making that simpler process by outnumbering lost sales at the non 'easy convert price' with new sales to the easy to convert market? 

To be honest, Mike, given the statistic that most OO RTR models either reside in display cabinets (or even don't come out of their pristine boxes), I suppose we should be grateful that there is a mechanism inside at all!

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Perhaps I need to stop using the phrase ' the average modeller '.

"All modellers are average but some are more average than others".

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

........If what in all honesty is a pretty small minority want something which is easy to convert to P4. (so perhaps spoiling 'RE6/6s fun and experimentation in the process)

......who is having a lot of fun, albeit at a snail's pace! What would be nice Mike would be if just sufficient clearance between splashers and bogie frames were engineered in at the design stage, but hum ho, I can but dream(!), although space was sufficient with the Kernow Bullied diesel where the wheels dropped in perfectly IIRC.

 

Generally P4ers will usually get round most conversion obstacles with varying degrees of finesse or in my case the lack of it!

Edited by Re6/6
  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Re6/6 said:

......who is having a lot of fun, albeit at a snail's pace! What would be nice Mike would be if just sufficient clearance between splashers and bogie frames were engineered in at the design stage, but hum ho, I can but dream(!), although space was sufficient with the Kernow Bullied diesel where the wheels dropped in perfectly IIRC.

 

Generally P4ers will usually get round most conversion obstacles with varying degrees of finesse or in my case the lack of it!

Great to hear you're enjoying it John - but I knew you would anyway.   I think there can be a very distinct difference between steam outline and diesel/electric outline modeels and that is the matter of splashers.  I know the ability to go for thinner mouldings is improving but there still has to be sufficient space in the mould to allow the injected material to flow properly and evenly to every part of the tool and if that doesn't happen the moulding is rejected, it's unusable.  So I suspect designers might have to err on the side of caution and certainly talking to one designer his view was that it was unavoidable to go for thinner mouldings in that area therefore it was difficult to justify a more readily convertible loco.   Splashers are small and thus more critical that a three or four axle bogie side frame in moulding terms but even there the risk of going too thin is no doubt present as there is also the question of handling damage.

 

Whether models are, or aren't, going to spend their lives in display cases is an interesting point (some of mine very definitely aren't everyday runners but should I put a display case on any wall in this house I would no doubt be an ex-Stationmaster for the second time and on this occasion a sort of 'ex' which definitely does not appeal to me :butcher: ).   But the odd thing is that it seems to be teh devil's own to persuade 'manufacturers' to produce unpowered models of just about anything including diseasals which spent most of their working lives running round in pairs).

  • Like 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Haha.....mine is called the playroom also, but I get my own back when Mrs BB wants to watch a film as the “cinema room” is in the same space :lol:

You’ll have to do better than that! “Playroom” is more insulting than “cinema room”. :jester: I don’t mind cheerful insults. I refer to my roof space as my belfry, as in “bats in my belfry” and so long as sophisticated models are free of import duty because they are classified as “toys”, I’m all for it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

You’ll have to do better than that! “Playroom” is more insulting than “cinema room”. :jester: I don’t mind cheerful insults. I refer to my roof space as my belfry, as in “bats in my belfry” and so long as sophisticated models are free of import duty because they are classified as “toys”, I’m all for it. 

Yes but I like the cinema room as well......it was either a full around the room 7mm layout or a roundy roundy 4mm in one part and the cinema in the other half of the room......oh these compromises we make :D

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/02/2021 at 19:24, Captain Kernow said:

To be honest, Mike, given the statistic that most OO RTR models either reside in display cabinets (or even don't come out of their pristine boxes), I suppose we should be grateful that there is a mechanism inside at all!

 

Is that right? In one way I am not surprised. But manufacturers do not appear to be driven by those stats if it is the case, given the continuous improvement in mechanisms and other features such as lights and sound - or even 'firebox glow', gimic though it may be. Those things require some sort of layout to appreciate, DC or DCC.

 

As an aside it is interesting to note that even Accurascale appear to have baulked at making their Manor easily convertible, though (i think i am right in saying) they have done that with all their wagons.

 

I think that it would help if there were more sources of 'drop in' finescale wheel sets to make RTR conversions easier. I have been a happy customer of Ultrascale. But having to wait months to get up and running, not to mention the cost, must put a lot of people off, particularly if they have an existing 'fleet' of any size to convert. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/02/2021 at 12:08, Chris Chewter said:

I think with the right figure placement, firebox glow can be quite effective.

 

 

It also reflects through the windows when viewing from different angles:

 

 

Whilst I was originally sceptical, I quite like it! 

Doesn't look too bad from those angles, but when I ran mine while kneeling on the floor (so I was looking up at the model) I could see a bit of red glow below the tanks just in front of the cab - it looked like the fire had melted a hole in the bottom of the loco! Are they all like that or has mine been sub-optimally put together?

 

I won't be sending it back as it ran wonderfully - going smoothly through a shutting exercise when everything else stalls at least once. It does make a slightly unhealthy noise at higher speeds but I'm guessing that would iron itself out if I was able to run it in properly - my brother asked me to see how fast it could go but I can only turn the knob so fast and my shunting plank is quite short so by the time I'd reached full speed and started slowing down again the rear tension lock had put a slight scratch on the Peco buffer stop at the end of the siding. No damage to the loco fortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rhydgaled said:

.... when I ran mine while kneeling on the floor (so I was looking up at the model) I could see a bit of red glow below the tanks just in front of the cab ....

 

Sounds a bit like the guest house claiming a sea view - but only if you stood on a chair and used binoculars!

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 4
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.