WR ‘15XX’ 0-6-0PT - 00 Gauge

[rapidoandy]

The 16xx was picked up and corrected. The GA drawing only shows half of the back/front on one elevation and the CAD designer assumed and mirrored the part. The survey of 1638 and the photos supplied to the designer were not much help as the engine was fully coaled ready for its next duty and thus hid the area! Either way, it is correct on the production models!

[BMacdermott]

On 04/12/2020 at 10:26, The Stationmaster said:

Alas I don't know Brian and never spoke to anybody who could remember it at Didcot.  However it is not beyond the realms of possibility as some unexpected things could happen when engines failed or a Control arranged a freight job at short notice.  The only published photo of it at Didcot which I have seen shows it at the east end of the yard on its own.

 

PS the 'loudspeaker' mentioned in the caption is in fact a standard GWR STOP board of which there were a number at that end of Didcot yard.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_1500_Class#/media/File:Didcot_geograph-2565399-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg

Hello Mike

 

Poll Team colleague and GWR author, John Lewis, has just told me that he believes that the MoD had an establishment just beyond Didcot power station. Did that have tight curves where the 15xx would be handy?

 

I think I have convinced myself that I do need to get one on order!

 

Brian

[Ribird]

@rapidoandy will the bunker on the 15xx be fixed to be one solid piece, compared to the two separate mouldings it is now? 

[Jack97m]

Do we have an estimated date of when the pre-orders will open as I’m impatiently waiting. I just need to choose what livery but it’ll definitely be sound. 
 

keep up the good work it’s looking good 

[mdvle]

19 minutes ago, Jack97m said:

Do we have an estimated date of when the pre-orders will open as I’m impatiently waiting. I just need to choose what livery but it’ll definitely be sound.

 

Given the hold-up (at last report) was the inability of the UK banks to open a business account due to Covid, I suspect nothing has changed - and they will tell us when things have changed.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Mike

 

Poll Team colleague and GWR author, John Lewis, has just told me that he believes that the MoD had an establishment just beyond Didcot power station. Did that have tight curves where the 15xx would be handy?

 

I think I have convinced myself that I do need to get one on order!

 

Brian

Afternoon Brian,

 

There was a very large ordnance (in the broader sense of that term) at Didcot as well as an 'aircraft depot' and another ordnance depot at Lockinge just west of Steventon.  A few of the buildings from the Didcot depot still survive in use on the trading estate which occupies much of the site of the Didcot depot, Didcot A (now dismantled) and Didcot B power stations plus the CEGB stores depot also occupy part of the ordnance depot site.  Although it lost its rail connection by c.1950 a larger percentage of the original buildings survive in private use at Lockinge because it remained in official use until a much later date that Didcot albeit transferred to the Ministry of Supply/Home Office (it was a major storage site for the 'Green Goddess military fire engines we heard so much of during various fire brigade strikes).  

 

The passenger lines at the Didcot depot, when they existed, were open to all GWR classes except 10XX, 47XX, and 60XX.  All other lines in Didcot depot were officially limited to Yellow and Uncoloured route restriction engines, and then subject to a maximum speed of 10mph.  That included the depot marshalling yard although I presume some of the lines there would have been in the Red category in order to receive and despatch trains.

 

Rich's Siding at Didcot was quite tightly curved and awkward to shunt so a 15XX would have been useful for that  and the Provender Siding was restricted to 0-6-0 tank engines which again suggests some tight curvature or clearance problem so the 15XX might also have been useful there.

 

None of which of course is any reason not to buy one - fortunately as far as I'm concerned they got to the Newport MP District so that's me settled.

 

 

[Ventnor]

8 hours ago, rapidoandy said:

The 16xx was picked up and corrected. The GA drawing only shows half of the back/front on one elevation and the CAD designer assumed and mirrored the part. The survey of 1638 and the photos supplied to the designer were not much help as the engine was fully coaled ready for its next duty and thus hid the area! Either way, it is correct on the production models!

Andy

 

Thanks for the reply. It hadn't stopped me from ordering one and considering another!! Besides, what would a green badge man like me know about GW locos and water scoops anyway!! ; )

 

By the way, the 15xx looks superb. I'll have a few tough financial decisions to make in the next 12 months what with Manors and corrected Modified Halls etc....... 

 

Cheers

 

Andy.

[No Decorum]

13 hours ago, Ventnor said:

…what would a green badge man like me know about GW locos and water scoops anyway!! ; )

 

By any chance, were you on the design team for Hornby’s A2/2? 

[G-BOAF]

On 01/02/2021 at 17:59, Ribird said:

Brining this to light about the current CADs and now soon-to-be-released 16xx. Will the coal bunker be one piece or a separate piece like the 16xx has been produced with? The mould lines aren't the best and just looks off. 

 

Images of the 15xx is from this thread, while the 16xx is off another RM, but using Model Rail's picture. 

Heck the bunker join looks poor, even allowing for it being a pre-produciton model. I understand the attempt to mask it with revet holes, and have it in a place where the real platework was jointed, but unless you are having similar lines at every platework join, it will look odd. Especially if the parts are painted before fitting.

I can well imagine the lined black versions having this line very noticable as there will inherently be a small gap in the lining over the crack. Painting after assmebly may help reduce the visibility of the line.

It all seems to be a bit like the weird roof seam on the Dapol Terrier, and rather un-rapido-ish who are normaly so excellent in their design and assembly. I've never seen such a weird join of flat areas of models on a 00 Loco before (nor I think a coach - any joins are in corners, changes in angles). If Bachmann can tool a one-piece bunker for thier new pannier, it must be possible and economic.

 

PLEASE AMEND THIS BIT OF THE DESIGN.....! I'd even pay £10 more if the tooling/production costs increase as a result (rather pay a bit more for quality product!)

Edited February 4, 2021 by G-BOAF

[Manitoba]

16 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

Heck the bunker join looks poor, even allowing for it being a pre-produciton model. I understand the attempt to mask it with revet holes, and have it in a place where the real platework was jointed, but unless you are having similar lines at every platework join, it will look odd. Especially if the parts are painted before fitting.

I can well imagine the lined black versions having this line very noticable as there will inherently be a small gap in the lining over the crack. Painting after assmebly may help reduce the visibility of the line.

It all seems to be a bit like the weird roof seam on the Dapol Terrier, and rather un-rapido-ish who are normaly so excellent in their design and assembly. I've never seen such a weird join of flat areas of models on a 00 Loco before (nor I think a coach - any joins are in corners, changes in angles). If Bachmann can tool a one-piece bunker for thier new pannier, it must be possible and economic.

 

PLEASE AMEND THIS BIT OF THE DESIGN.....! I'd even pay £10 more if the tooling/production costs increase as a result (rather pay a bit more for quality product!)

 

I firmly agree with the last point.  I had been planning to buy the 16xx, but the rear of the bunker looks too much like a botch, and I will be hanging on to my drinking vouchers.

 

Let's hope it's not too late to save the day for the 15xx

 

Phil

[rapidoandy]

23 hours ago, Ribird said:

@rapidoandy will the bunker on the 15xx be fixed to be one solid piece, compared to the two separate mouldings it is now? 

 

Simply -we are currently looking at this. Due to the shape of the bunker there has to be a compromise somewhere as otherwise it is impossible to mould and inject. The body shape itself is not a problem, its the detail such as rivets. The way the mould will move determines what shapes can be produced.

 

To get the full, properly shaped rivets on the underside of the bunker flare the part needs to be separate from the main body. However, by altering the shape of the rivets themselves we should be able to make it as one part. The detail changes should be small enough not to be noticeable. This is currently the direction we are exploring.

 

Its worth noting that even the latest CAD drawings (which will be shown shortly in a new newsletter) show it as two parts but this does not mean to say it is final - it is all still a work in progress. We will keep you posted.

 

Andy

[G-BOAF]

38 minutes ago, rapidoandy said:

 

Simply -we are currently looking at this. Due to the shape of the bunker there has to be a compromise somewhere as otherwise it is impossible to mould and inject. The body shape itself is not a problem, its the detail such as rivets. The way the mould will move determines what shapes can be produced.

 

To get the full, properly shaped rivets on the underside of the bunker flare the part needs to be separate from the main body. However, by altering the shape of the rivets themselves we should be able to make it as one part. The detail changes should be small enough not to be noticeable. This is currently the direction we are exploring.

 

Its worth noting that even the latest CAD drawings (which will be shown shortly in a new newsletter) show it as two parts but this does not mean to say it is final - it is all still a work in progress. We will keep you posted.

 

Andy

Please this issue is on the agenda. Than you for the responsiveness.

 

Could the bunker be separated from the cab as per the Bachmann 57XX (with a resulting seam between the bunker and cab roof - much less noticable than in its current position). Or would this still not solve the rivet issue. I would rather slightly elongated rivets, or slightly shallow rivets on the underside, than a huge join.

Alternatively, could the panel lines on all the joins on the bunker and cab area be reprasented. This means that the join of the rear bunker will blend in with the other 'seams' running along the platework. However I feel this would be overscale and a slight fudge with the rivets in certain areas might be easier...

[Miss Prism]

Mainline did quite a decent job of it over 40 years ago:

 

[PMP]

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

Mainline did quite a decent job of it over 40 years ago:

 

The only problem with that statement is you’ve shown a Bachmann retooled version.

 

I need to get out more....

[Miss Prism]

As far as I know, Bachmann didn't touch the bunker area. Or maybe they did. Anyway, whoever did it, did a good job on the bunker area.

 

 

[PMP]

17 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

As far as I know, Bachmann didn't touch the bunker area. Or maybe they did. Anyway, whoever did it, did a good job on the bunker area.

 

 

They did, the Bachmann version is far more subtle, rivets are much smaller and panel join lines shallower and narrower.  The infamous ’Bachmann Trencher’ was clearly on a day off when they re-tooled the panniers! 

[Ventnor]

12 hours ago, No Decorum said:

By any chance, were you on the design team for Hornby’s A2/2? 

What's an A2/2?? 

[No Decorum]

7 hours ago, Ventnor said:

What's an A2/2?? 

Assuming you’re serious: R3830 60501 Cock o' the North  and R3831 60505 Thane of Fife.
On screen 14 of the topic: Hornby A2/2 and A2/3 (2020 Range), Screen 14, there is a photograph of the scoop fitted the wrong way round.

 

[G-BOAF]

I sense the solution is to make sure the 'footprint' of the rivet is round, and if the head is a little bit off or shallow, then so bit it.

Looking at the test shots of the Accurascale Manor, the otherwise excellent front end is spoiled by lozenge shaped rivet heads on the top row...

 

As pointed out, Bachmann have managed it on their pannier bunker (both the 2000 era 57xx and the more recent 94xx). I can't believe Rapdio can't innovate their way out of this without it looking odd....!

[gwrrob]

A couple of images and a short video of the CAD and design work is nearly complete.

 

 

 

[SteamingWales]

Just now, gwrrob said:

A couple of images and a short video of the CAD and design work is nearly complete.

 

 

 

 

Just read my newsletter. The cab and bunker will be one piece

[rapidoandy]

You beat me to it!

 

Those of you who are subscribed to our newsletter will hopefully have just received the latest edition. As shown above there are a number of new CAD images alongside our new video showing the current progress.

 

Enjoy!

 

Andy

[mdvle]

On 03/02/2021 at 12:29, Jack97m said:

Do we have an estimated date of when the pre-orders will open as I’m impatiently waiting. I just need to choose what livery but it’ll definitely be sound.

 

And the newsletter they just sent out confirms that they are still waiting on a UK bank account.

 

 

[Manitoba]

1 hour ago, SteamingWales said:

 

Just read my newsletter. The cab and bunker will be one piece

 

Are we certain about this? The CAD shows the top/rear part of the bunker as a separate piece, just as on the 16xx (unless I am mis-reading it).

 

Phil

Edited February 5, 2021 by Manitoba
typo

[mdvle]

9 minutes ago, Manitoba said:

 

Are we certain about this? The CAD shows the top/rear part of the bunker as a separate piece, just as on the 16xx (unless I am mis-reading it).

 

The CAD hasn't been updated to reflect the change - the newsletter states they will be one piece.

 

[edit]

 

Here is the relevant quote from the newsletter:

 

Quote

We still have a couple of tweaks to make to both, most importantly making the bunker and the cab a single moulding on the '15XX'. But we should see Engineering Prototypes of both locomotives later this year.

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by mdvle