Hunslet 16" 0-6-0 Saddle Tank - 00 Gauge

[tomparryharry]

5 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I was partly involved in the restoration of it!

 

Never had a go of it as it spent a lot of time on loan. But I had stopped regularly volunteering by the time it was steaming anyway.

 

 

Jason

 We had both of the valve buckles 'go' in quick succession. Luckily, our foundry was just down the road, so it was a 'severe dose of looking at'.  A very nice locomotive to work on. 

[MrTea]

6 hours ago, rapidoandy said:

 

Take a look at the livery slide show on the website and have a close look at Beatrice ;-)

 

Andy

Hi Andy, 

 

Are the proposed liveries and chimneys based on the locos as they were in service as opposed to as they are/have been in preservation?

 

I’ve just been checking back on some photos from Embsay over the years and Primrose No. 2 seems to have had a stovepipe chimney whereas Beatrice has a lipped one?

 

Primrose No. 2 at Embsay in the early 1980s

 

Beatrice (No. 7) at Bolton Abbey in 2015

 

I’m sure the more knowledgeable RMWebbers might be able to shed some light on why that is?

 

Thanks. 
 

Ian
 

 

[rapidoandy]

In service both Beatrice and Primrose No.2 (along with two others) were fitted with underfeed stokers and stovepipe chimneys. They were originally fitted with standard chimneys but received their stovepipes after undergoing the stoker conversion and overhauls at the Hunslet Engine Co. works.

 

In preservation the owner of Beatrice has more some substantial modifications to the exhaust system - mainly fitting a Lempor exhaust - and replaced the chimney with a more traditional lipped chimney.

 

Thanks,

 

Andy

[26power]

9 hours ago, 5050 said:

Well, to me it means that swopping wheels and axles for suitable alternatives such as Gibson wheels could be rather difficult given all the cogs and suchlike that would have to be transposed to the new axles.  Captain K's idea of  JE chassis would work I suppose - but what would you do with the OO chassis?  Find a 7mm narrow gauge modeller possibly that would pay a realistic price for it?  May as well buy the JE kit and have all the pleasure of building it.

Ah, right.  It is the use of connecting gears to all axles that is possibly an issue.  Just a general query, I have no specific interest in this model, but I would like to see models being easily convertible to more accurate gauges.

[Dunsignalling]

5 hours ago, 26power said:

Ah, right.  It is the use of connecting gears to all axles that is possibly an issue.  Just a general query, I have no specific interest in this model, but I would like to see models being easily convertible to more accurate gauges.

Logically, that's only going to happen if it doesn't add significantly to the time or cost involved in developing the product.

 

Years ago, Alan Gibson described the spread of his wheel sales as 95% OO, 4% EM, and 1% P4. Bearing in mind that almost all rtr buyers just keep the wheels their models come with, P4 probably represents 1% of 1% of the overall market.

 

We must also consider that for many who adopt the gauge, plastic is an anathema, so the figure reduces some more....

 

Sorry, but if you get into this area of modelling, you'd best be prepared to do a lot  more for yourself.

 

John

[Coach bogie]

I am going to have to sign up to Beatrice, not that it would be seen in 1930's Westbury.

 

My first teaching job was in Tring. I was being shown around and when we came to the DT area (craft it was then) I walked into a room full of the expected tools and machines. What I did not expect was various parts from a steam locomotive. The teacher owned Beatrice and to teach youngsters all the skills he brought the parts down to be repaired/restored and the students learned lots of skills at the same time.

 

I knew I was in the right place. Over the next few years various parts were complete and others appeared to be worked on.

 

Then the National Curriculum came in and students had to make pencil cases instead.

 

He still brought parts to work on in his own time, but the students missed out.

 

He also owns a GW toad which he and his wife live in when at Embsay. So there is my excuse. I have lots of toads and I need an industrial locomotive to haul it!

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Fireline]

19 hours ago, PMP said:

It’s not the fact that it’s a coreless motor that gives those types of issues.

 

I have issues with Bachmann locos, particularly a class 108, that seem to "stutter" when going downhill. I know this isn't necessarily the place, but I would appreciate ideas of what's causing it!

Edited December 2, 2020 by Fireline
Spelling error.

[New Haven Neil]

From reading about this in American modelling magazines ages ago, the issue is actually in excessive end float on the motor (or worm drive shaft, in the case of bogie locos) shaft, nothing to do with the linking gears. Therefore the issue is one of quality control, and manufacture to acceptable tolerances.  It can be helped by shimming the end float of motor/shafts.  I have about 40 US outline diesels that ran on my now scrapped layout, all with gear linked trucks, the better quality ones don't surge descending gradients, the cheap ones do.

[26power]

5 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Logically, that's only going to happen if it doesn't add significantly to the time or cost involved in developing the product.

 

Years ago, Alan Gibson described the spread of his wheel sales as 95% OO, 4% EM, and 1% P4. Bearing in mind that almost all rtr buyers just keep the wheels their models come with, P4 probably represents 1% of 1% of the overall market.

 

We must also consider that for many who adopt the gauge, plastic is an anathema, so the figure reduces some more....

 

Sorry, but if you get into this area of modelling, you'd best be prepared to do a lot  more for yourself.

 

John

You are taking this into a far wider area than my query and the response.  
 

My point was simply with regard to this new use of gearing between all driven axles which, presumably, makes conversion (to EM or P4, I never mentioned just one) more complicated.  Modern models of steam locos driven on one axle seem to run fine, so why this recent change?

 

I would have thought driving all axles with gears was something that added to cost and time of development!

 

Finally, where do you get your idea that “many” that want to use a more accurate gauge are opposed to plastic centred wheels?  Indeed what wheels do they use if not plastic centred ones?!

[5050]

6 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Sorry, but if you get into this area of modelling, you'd best be prepared to do a lot  more for yourself.

 

John

Why be sorry?  P4 and EM modellers do tend to do a lot for themselves as a matter of course.  That's probably why they work to these standards in the first place.  I also use a LOT of plastic in my modelling - including wheels which I do not really have any option not to. 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, 26power said:

You are taking this into a far wider area than my query and the response.  
 

My point was simply with regard to this new use of gearing between all driven axles which, presumably, makes conversion (to EM or P4, I never mentioned just one) more complicated.  Modern models of steam locos driven on one axle seem to run fine, so why this recent change?

 

I would have thought driving all axles with gears was something that added to cost and time of development!

 

Finally, where do you get your idea that “many” that want to use a more accurate gauge are opposed to plastic centred wheels?  Indeed what wheels do they use if not plastic centred ones?!

I don't really see why intermediate gearing should necessarily be an impediment to gauge conversion. Surely the most critical factors are axle diameter and how easily the gears can be transferred onto longer ones?

 

Those who provide the components EM and P4 modellers have very much stepped up to the mark in facilitating r-t-r loco conversions. It will be helpful for them if Rapido stick to a consistent way of doing things even if they depart from the methods of longer-established makes.

 

Bitter, and all-too-frequent, experience would lead me to discourage anyone from treating Hornby as a role model in relation to gears.

 

John

[5050]

25 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I don't really see why intermediate gearing should necessarily be an impediment to gauge conversion. Surely the most critical factors are axle diameter and how easily the gears can be transferred onto longer ones?

Granted, but it will depend on how the gears are fitted/formed.  If they are separate sprockets fitted onto a 1/8" axle then they may be removable and fitted to a 1/8" axle such as the AG ones.  If however they are moulded as a one piece central section of a 3-part axle (with possible split frame current collection) then conversion - without an awful lot of work - is well nigh impossible.

[PenrithBeacon]

8 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Logically, that's only going to happen if it doesn't add significantly to the time or cost involved in developing the product.

 

Years ago, Alan Gibson described the spread of his wheel sales as 95% OO, 4% EM, and 1% P4. Bearing in mind that almost all rtr buyers just keep the wheels their models come with, P4 probably represents 1% of 1% of the overall market.

 

We must also consider that for many who adopt the gauge, plastic is an anathema, so the figure reduces some more....

 

Sorry, but if you get into this area of modelling, you'd best be prepared to do a lot  more for yourself.

 

John

So let's knock minorities, why not.

Judging from what I see on here most 00 modellers prefer Markits wheels when they need replacements, probably because AGW's wheels are seen, reasonably enough, as difficult. As a P4 modeller, I haven't got any choice really (Ultrascale wheels are a long wait and there isn't a lot of choice), and I find them to be a right pain in the b*lls, but I'm stuck with them.Tough.

I'd quite like to know how many "Years ago" Alan Gibson said that, It's probably long ago when Markits stuff was difficult to get. The next time I see Colin Seymour at a show I shall, assuming of course that I remember, ask him, but it might be worth mentioning that AGW wheels are marketed (IIRC) as being for 00/EM and P4 so it might not be possible to get an answer. It will also invalidate the percentages mentioned in the quoted post above.

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by PenrithBeacon

[Dunsignalling]

I had no intention of "knocking minorities", but was merely pointing out that the proportion of r-t-r models purchased with conversion to one of the finescale gauges in mind is minute in relation to overall sales.  The Alan Gibson interview was cited simply because there doesn't seem to be any more recent data on the subject in the public domain. The fact remains that 99%+ of r-t-r locos will have the same wheels at the end of their working lives that they started with.

 

If Rapido (or anyone else) feels that gearing their axles together will make their OO trains run better or (more likely) just with less variability between examples, the fact that it might make such conversions more difficult is unlikely to be a good enough reason not to do so. 

 

OK, it could possibly be argued that Rapido's products might be more likely to attract such attention than those of Bachmann or Hornby, but that's purely speculation on my part.

 

All that said, for any EM or P4 modeller wanting one of these locos, an aftermarket replacement chassis kit will almost certainly become available. That will offer the opportunity of using a motor and transmission superior to any we are ever likely to be offered in a r-t-r product, even one from Rapido.

 

John 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Barry O]

If you don't like the gear train.. just build a Judith Edge kit for this loco - then you can fit whatever you want and make it in 00, EM or S$  with wheels to suit your needs..

 

baz

[Captain Kernow]

6 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I had no intention of "knocking minorities", but was merely pointing out that the proportion of r-t-r models purchased with conversion to one of the finescale gauges in mind is minute in relation to overall sales.  The Alan Gibson interview was cited simply because there doesn't seem to be any more recent data on the subject in the public domain.

 

Therefore, if Rapido (or anyone else) feels that gearing their axles together will make their OO trains run better or (more likely) just with less variability between examples, the fact that it might make such conversions more difficult is unlikely to be a good enough reason not to do so. 

 

OK, it could possibly be argued that Rapido's products might be more likely to attract such attention than those of Bachmann or Hornby, but that's purely speculation on my part.

 

All that said, for any EM or P4 modeller wanting one of these locos, an aftermarket replacement chassis kit will almost certainly become available. That will offer the opportunity of using a motor and transmission superior to any we are ever likely to be offered in a r-t-r product, even one from Rapido.

Hello John,

 

I really don't wish to knock Rapido after their innovative and original selection of RTR models, but I have two issues here.

 

One is that I completely agree with Penrith Beacon and 5050 with regard to the ease of P4 conversions. If there are gears on all three axles, that in itself makes the work of conversion more time-consuming and possibly more difficult.

 

Yes, a lot of P4 modellers (and a lot of OO and EM modellers, too) will be able to make up their own replacement chassis from kits or even scratchbuild, but one of the arguments we use to try to encourage folk to convert to P4 is the ease of conversion of some RTR locos, such as quite a lot of Bachmann and Hornby examples.

 

In this instance, ease (or difficulty) of conversion to P4 isn't the issue and it won't stop me buying one of these Hunslets.

 

What I might have issue with, having had fingers well and truly burned with the Hattons/DJM 14XX, is the use of gearing on all axles of a steam loco, thus making the side rods effectively a cosmetic adornment only, rather than replicating the way the real things work.

 

If the presence of gears on all axles of any future RTR releases that I wish to buy (regardless of manufacturer) results in the loco running less well than it otherwise could, I will (to quote Jane Austen) be Most Seriously Displeased.

 

 

[davknigh]

Speaking of wheels, what was the diameter of the prototype Hunslet wheels? 

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Hello John,

 

I really don't wish to knock Rapido after their innovative and original selection of RTR models, but I have two issues here.

 

One is that I completely agree with Penrith Beacon and 5050 with regard to the ease of P4 conversions. If there are gears on all three axles, that in itself makes the work of conversion more time-consuming and possibly more difficult.

 

Yes, a lot of P4 modellers (and a lot of OO and EM modellers, too) will be able to make up their own replacement chassis from kits or even scratchbuild, but one of the arguments we use to try to encourage folk to convert to P4 is the ease of conversion of some RTR locos, such as quite a lot of Bachmann and Hornby examples.

 

In this instance, ease (or difficulty) of conversion to P4 isn't the issue and it won't stop me buying one of these Hunslets.

 

What I might have issue with, having had fingers well and truly burned with the Hattons/DJM 14XX, is the use of gearing on all axles of a steam loco, thus making the side rods effectively a cosmetic adornment only, rather than replicating the way the real things work.

 

If the presence of gears on all axles of any future RTR releases that I wish to buy (regardless of manufacturer) results in the loco running less well than it otherwise could, I will (to quote Jane Austen) be Most Seriously Displeased.

 

 

Hello Tim,

 

I do understand all that, and I'd think Rapido do too.

 

One thought that occurs is that, unless the motor drives on an idler, could the gears on all but the driven axle of a replacement set just be omitted, leaving the coupling rods to perform their natural function?

 

I have one of the infamous DJM/Hattons 14xx, but mine runs just fine so I've not felt a need to investigate its innards.

 

Regards

 

John

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[PenrithBeacon]

35 minutes ago, Barry O said:

If you don't like the gear train.. just build a Judith Edge kit for this loco - then you can fit whatever you want and make it in 00, EM or S$  with wheels to suit your needs..

 

baz

Perhaps Mike could be persuaded to release a separate chassis kit. Being a modeller of very limited skills (not all P4 modellers are master craftsmen) I have often looked at the JE kit but been put of by the saddle tank. No chance of me being able to do that.

[5050]

4 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Perhaps Mike could be persuaded to release a separate chassis kit. Being a modeller of very limited skills (not all P4 modellers are master craftsmen) I have often looked at the JE kit but been put of by the saddle tank. No chance of me being able to do that.

You would still be left with a relatively expensive OO chassis to find a new home for.

[mdvle]

37 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

What I might have issue with, having had fingers well and truly burned with the Hattons/DJM 14XX, is the use of gearing on all axles of a steam loco, thus making the side rods effectively a cosmetic adornment only, rather than replicating the way the real things work.

 

I think at this point the only thing that can be said about any of the DJM produced products is that they can't be used an example of what to expect from anybody else's product at all - the prime example being the coreless motors.

 

And while I don't have any of Rapido's steam products, I haven't heard of anyone complaining about how they perform beyond the occasional issue that any product, steam or diesel, has that usually involves swapping for a replacement model.

 

What I can do (as a mere customer/follower) is point out a couple of things from what Rapido have made public.

 

First, from their North American newsletter #88 * (May 5th 2017), we learned that their factories in China had hired Mr. Wu, who had 30 years of experience in designing steam locomotive models.  Mr. Wu was responsible for the design of the Royal Hudson mechanism as it shipped to customers and I haven't seen anything regarding problems with the mechanism (and believe me, given the undeserved hatred towards Rapido concerning a recent diesel loco that didn't tool up one detail difference on a online forum, people would have made it known).

 

Two (and to make it clear, no idea if this reflects how their UK products will be designed), the parts diagram for their Royal Hudson that will allow people to see how that model's mechanism is designed (the PDF will zoom to 400% nicely)

https://rapidotrains.com/sites/default/files/manuals/2019/07/600-BOM.pdf

 

And while I doubt it shows what people are interested in, the video they produced of the Royal Hudson in action

 

 

There are lots of other videos and reviews that can be found.

 

(a couple of important caveats - North American steam loco models come with traction tires, a necessary evil given the large layouts and expectation of pulling really long trains that is not a common issue in the UK, and Steam loco prices in North America are typically much higher than diesels reflecting that it is a smaller market with the resulting lower sales numbers).

 

 

* - https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Rapido-News-Vol--88---Loads-of-Project-Updates.html?soid=1101318906379&aid=EB_w9n2ql2c#a9

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, 5050 said:

You would still be left with a relatively expensive OO chassis to find a new home for.

I'd expect there to be quite a healthy demand for these from the 7mm NG fraternity.

 

John

[AMJ]

For those who fancy an elaborate livery S121 Primrose (Hunslet Engine Co 3715/1952) one I took some time ago (many years before Andy knew the location).

http://leedsengine.info/leeds/images/Hunslet Engine/Standard Gauge Loco/Steam/HE 3715 AMJ.jpg

[Captain Kernow]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I do understand all that, and I'd think Rapido do too

Yes, I feel sure this is the case.

 

Given my personal experience of finding that RTR diesel mechanisms tend to run more smoothly, especially at slow speeds, than many steam loco mechanisms (perhaps I've just been unlucky or, more probably, am excessively picky about slow speed control), I shouldn't really have any objections to a steam loco chassis effectively being designed as a 'motor bogie'.

 

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

One thought that occurs is that, unless the motor drives on an idler, could the gears on all but the driven axle of a replacement set just be omitted, leaving the coupling rods to perform their natural function?

Indeed, and this would certainly depend on the design of the mechanism.

 

The problem I have with this, though, is that in order for the steam outline 'motor bogie' to function reliably, I suspect there is a risk that engineering clearances on the coupling rods may be made a little 'lax', to ensure that the rods and the gears don't work against each other.

 

Sorry to hark back to the 14XX episode, but unlike you, I tried three different examples and they all ran like dogs, (they even ran worse after a period of running in), so my view on that type of mechanism under a steam outline model is somewhat jaded.

 

2 hours ago, mdvle said:

I think at this point the only thing that can be said about any of the DJM produced products is that they can't be used an example of what to expect from anybody else's product at all - the prime example being the coreless motors.

Indeed, they shouldn't be used as an example of what to expect, but the way folk look at things isn't always rational and for me personally, it's a case of 'once bitten, twice shy'.

 

2 hours ago, mdvle said:

And while I don't have any of Rapido's steam products, I haven't heard of anyone complaining about how they perform beyond the occasional issue that any product, steam or diesel, has that usually involves swapping for a replacement model

The only other Rapido-manufacturered steam outline loco I have is a Model Rail J70 tram engine. I have decided to dispose of this now, because it was an impulse purchase and really doesn't belong in my layout's setting. Although it runs pretty smoothly and I have no quibble with the quality of the build generally, the back-to-back came out at 15mm, not the more usual 14.5mm, resulting in it not running through my OO-SF pointwork.

 

All in all, though, I am not really seeking to criticise Rapido in any way for the products they have announced. In the greater scheme of things, these issues are relatively minor and they are to be applauded for their decision to add to the breadth of items available ready-to-run in the UK.

 

[RANGERS]

On 01/12/2020 at 16:44, 1whitemoor said:

This is excellent news. 

 

A couple of queries regarding the prototype choices: 

 

Will the model of Oxfordshire Ironstone HE3716/52 "Alex" have the correctly modified buffer beams with buckeye couplings? Notably she didn't have a coupling hook. Looking at your livery samples the frames and sandboxes were also crimson on her too, I believe. 

 

 

In addition, would there be a possibility to offer the model of "Jacks Green" with separately fitted etched name plates along with the name "Ring Haw"? Both locos wore identical liveries and worked together at Nassington Quarries topping and tailing trains out of the pit.

 

Both are also preserved (Ring Haw notably in operational condition on the NNR). I'd like both and I expect a few people may be in the same boat. 

 

Paul A. 

Narrow Lines produced name and works plates for both of these for me last year, so I guess they have the artwork to repeat them.