Rapido OO Gauge GWR 44xx/45xx/4575 Small Prairie

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Chuffed 1 said:

 

Agree about the Hawksworth County. Strange that Hornby, Bachmann, Accurascale and Rapido have all avoided it - the non- standard tender, perhaps?

 

 

Later Castles and Modified Halls were also built with Hawksworth tenders, though the County one was slightly wider AIUI. Not a huge problem with modern mould construction.

[Miss Prism]

11 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Not a huge problem with modern mould construction.

 

It would mean a new tool.

[Dunsignalling]

1 minute ago, Miss Prism said:

 

It would mean a new tool.

I can't see that being a deal breaker though especially if you don't already make either of the others.

 

How much investment does a mould for a tender body involve anyway?

 

Hornby supposedly has a set of appropriate (though not comprehensive) tender tools for each of their LNER and SR Pacifics despite that leading to some of them being duplicated. It would therefore seem to be worthwhile purely for the sake of convenience.

 

John

[toby_tl10]

5 hours ago, Madreddog said:

Given that Rapido appear to be avoiding using wiper pickups on their models and instead using the problematic split chassis that, as yet, no-one has made reliable on steam locos I won't be buying their locos.

I don't know enough about split chassis, hopefully someone can enlighten me on that. I own a Rapido J70 and haven't had problems, and I believe others have reported it as a smooth and reliable runner.

[Ian Hargrave]

It seems to me that persuading Rapido,or for that matter any manufacturers of OO gauge model locomotives to eventually provide us with both a County and a Saint is akin to Salome asking for the head of John The Baptist on a plate. The 44xx is undoubtedly going to be excellent….but why avoid the glaring GW/WR omissions ? The Saint is already there for the taking. I am royally miffed.

[The Stationmaster]

7 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

It seems to me that persuading Rapido,or for that matter any manufacturers of OO gauge model locomotives to eventually provide us with both a County and a Saint is akin to Salome asking for the head of John The Baptist on a plate. The 44xx is undoubtedly going to be excellent….but why avoid the glaring GW/WR omissions ? The Saint is already there for the taking. I am royally miffed.

I don't blame em for not touching it ... but I'm not saying why I think that

[Madreddog]

28 minutes ago, toby_tl10 said:

I don't know enough about split chassis, hopefully someone can enlighten me on that. I own a Rapido J70 and haven't had problems, and I believe others have reported it as a smooth and reliable runner.

The majority of manufacturers have gone over to wiper pickups because this doesn't suffer the problem that split chassis often do. Using axles with an insulation bush in the middle and having a chassis made in two halves also with insulating bushings is a very cheap way of making a model. This sounds good but the axles are now trying to do two things. What has always happened is that the conductive coating on the chassis halves wears out and then you get running problems. Some models got alot of use and it wore through the coating resulting in reliability problems in the long run.

 

It was used by Mainline whose tooling was inherited by Bachmann. They have been replacing split chassis models with wiper pickup versions.

 

Now we come to the unpleasant subject of DJ Models who also went down the split chassis route. It was pot luck if you got one that ran alright or not. Their reliability was not good... some failed after less than two years if you were lucky enough to find one that ran for that long. Many of these models are now being sold under the EFE Rail brand. I have no idea if they fixed some of the poor design choices made by the previous manufacturer.

 

Have Rapido solved the problems with split chassis? I don't know.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Madreddog

[D9020 Nimbus]

Split chassis are widely used in N gauge models, though. Many of the Bachmann/Farish diesels have this type of mechanism.

[Madreddog]

3 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Split chassis are widely used in N gauge models, though. Many of the Bachmann/Farish diesels have this type of mechanism.

I can see why. The majority of my N gauge stuff was made in Poole. I was having to clean the wheels and pickups often. Given how fiddly modern models are I wouldn't want to take them apart for servicing.

 

I would be interested to see a longevity comparison between the two systems of current collection on modern models.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Ian Hargrave said:

It seems to me that persuading Rapido,or for that matter any manufacturers of OO gauge model locomotives to eventually provide us with both a County and a Saint is akin to Salome asking for the head of John The Baptist on a plate. The 44xx is undoubtedly going to be excellent….but why avoid the glaring GW/WR omissions ? The Saint is already there for the taking. I am royally miffed.

Worth mentioning that Salome got John the Baptist’s head on a plate, not bad for an erotic dancer…

 

A split chassis should work reliably and provide near perfect smoothness and slow running, but Mainline’s attempt was built down to a price and let down by a pathetic pancake motor and plastic spur gears driving wheels with plastic central axles and chassis blocks prone to mazak rot distortion, and they never really stood a chance of being successful or reliable.  I have no idea what was wrong with the DJH split chassis, but IIRC they were in conjunction with a geared drive to all the driving wheels which may have had a bearing on their poor reputation. 
 

I will be abandoning my attempt to produce a 44xx from a reversed Baccy mech and buying the Rapido 44xx when it is released.  Tondu had 3 of these on the books until 1953 to work the sharply curved Porthcawl branch; not aware that any ever penetrated the mountain fastnesses of the hinterland but that’s close enough for me!  Thank you, Rapido (now where’s my Collett 1938 31xx?)!

[GernBlanstonShow]

Train packs with the B set coaches?

 

I could use a large tank engine. While I think the Bachmann is an adequate model I may be tempted by a train pack with matching stock 🤔

[Michael Hodgson]

I must say I prefer a small prairie over a large one on the ubiquitous GWR branch line terminus.

But I don't have a GWR terminus.  It should sell well I think.

[didcot]

Well I'm looking forward to a 44xx.

[NHY 581]

Good news but I can't help thinking a 14xx that works would have been a better option. Would have been handy for the Titfield anniversary as well. 1401 anyone ? 

[Dunsignalling]

3 hours ago, Madreddog said:

I can see why. The majority of my N gauge stuff was made in Poole. I was having to clean the wheels and pickups often. Given how fiddly modern models are I wouldn't want to take them apart for servicing.

 

I would be interested to see a longevity comparison between the two systems of current collection on modern models.

Previous instances of split chassis r-t-r locos in OO (Mainline, Bachmann) were blighted by wheels and axles failing. This was often exacerbated by exposure to high temperatures (e.g., lofts in summer) and seemed to stem from the use of inadequate materials, or possibly inappropriate lubricants that attacked the plastic.

 

There's nothing wrong with the split-chassis in principle as, until failures occurred, the locos generally gave good service and, in many cases still do. I have early Bachmann 03 diesel and Ivatt tank locos that still run satisfactorily despite having had enough use to wear through the plating on the wheels.

 

Neither has ever seen service, or been stored, in a loft and I've always been picky about what oil I use and careful not to overdo its application.

 

John

Edited November 26, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[SteamingWales]

Just a thought (and not wanting to start a price debate). If Rapido can deliver their Small Prairies for less than or similar to the current price of the Bachmann offering isn't it really a win win?

 

Given the current situation financially ~£160 for a brand new 2022 detail level model seems reasonable to me. Or am I crackers🤪🤪🤪?

 

[Craigw]

Given that Rapido have shown an interest in earlier eras it would be a good move on their part to have the cab side sliding shutters as a separate part or be removable. This and having the port holes over the firebox would be a huge change and would make a 1920s small prairie available for the first time (RTR)

 

I have a couple of each in Mitchell box form but I could be tempted by one or two in earlier condition. 

 

Craig W

[The Johnster]

Sliding shutters as a removable, and therefore presumably working, i.e. can be slid into closed or open positions are definitely a very good idea on GW side tank engines.  They date from the post-grouping era when loco crews from constituent/absorbed companies, especially in South Wales, complained that the GW cab was ineffective at keeping the weather out when the loco was not moving; ISTR reading that the 56xx was the first to attract criticism.  Sliding shutters were fitted to all GW tank engines, inside the cab on panniers and 48xx/58xx, and any 517s or Metros that got full cabs.  The small and large prairie classes, 56xx, and 42xx/5202/72xx had them outside the cab, and RTR models  of these classes have them moulded with the bodyshell.  I do not know if they were ever fitted to the 2-4-2, inside cylinder prairie, or ‘County’ tanks. 
 

Like others, I’m happy with my Bachmann small prairies, lovely little things and good runners, but if I were to buy another 45xx or 4575, I would probably go for the new Rapido option. Be interesting to see how much of an improvement over the already very good Baccy the new Rapidos are.  Deffo having a 44xx, though, so I’ll be able to compare the mechs directly!

Edited November 27, 2022 by The Johnster

[Mikkel]

On 26/11/2022 at 16:12, Miss Prism said:

 

I think Rapido would be a bit mad to do a short smokebox short bunker version.

 

 

There's a challenge for you, Rapido. Are you mad enough?

 

 

 

Otherwise, my old razor saw may get another outing.

 

44xx, original version:

 

 

44xx, later version: 

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Mikkel
To clarify

[57xx]

12 hours ago, Craigw said:

This and having the port holes over the firebox would be a huge change and would make a 1920s small prairie available for the first time (RTR)

 

Bachmann have done the portholes before, I have one stashed away somewhere.

[rapidoandy]

Disclaimer - this is the VERY FIRST CAD and it arrived at 0330 this morning. We havn’t looked at it or checked it over so inevitably it will have some mistakes and issues that we will correct. But seeing as everyone is asking and talking we thought we should show them off….

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rapidoandy]

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

10 minutes ago, rapidoandy said:

Disclaimer - this is the VERY FIRST CAD and it arrived at 0330 this morning. We havn’t looked at it or checked it over so inevitably it will have some mistakes and issues that we will correct. But seeing as everyone is asking and talking we thought we should show them off….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Andy. Looking good but the 44xx and 45xx wheelbase should be 6ft between leading and centre driving wheels, and 5ft 6in between centre and trailing driving wheels. See the drawings Mikkel posted above.

 

That is the opposite spacing to the 4575 class...

 

Edited November 27, 2022 by Harlequin

[Flying Pig]

16 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

There's nothing wrong with the split-chassis in principle as, until failures occurred, the locos generally gave good service and, in many cases still do. 

 

And split chassis in principle doesn't have to mean the design used by Mainline.  It can be properly engineered axles, with bearings and conventional separate wheels (albeit not insulated).   Mainline chose a very cheap and cheerful implementation.

[rapidoandy]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

Thanks Andy. Looking good but the 44xx and 45xx wheelbase should be 6ft between leading and centre driving wheels, and 5ft 6in between centre and trailing driving wheels. See the drawings Mikkel posted above.

 

That is the opposite spacing to the 4575 class...

 

Absolutely . One of many things not right with the first CAD… now we have the fun bit of correcting all the issues. 😀