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

[The Johnster]

It should be possible, of course I couldn't say if it is economically viable, to make GW side tank locos (that is to say, 44xx, 45xx, 4575, 42xx, 5205, 5101, 56xx, 3150, 61xx, various rebuilt Welsh constituent/absorbed with GW style cabs; TTBOMK 72xx, 81xx, and Collett 1938 31xx, which were rebuilds, had shutters from their introduction, as did the 41xx series of 5101s) without sliding shutters and include the slides and the shutters in the box for modellers to attach if they so desire.  This of course would only apply to liveries that could be seen on locos of the given class with or withouth the shutters.  Perhaps a selection of number plates as well...

 

Should be equally possible and arguably economically viable to provide sliding shutters on the panniers and smaller tank engines as well.  On these they were inside the cab, and some of my locos have them in various positions; not difficult to model, sheet plastic painted green or black and glued in whatever position you want, but of course you can't slide my home made ones.  I think I am right in saying that the sliding shutters were introduced after drivers in South Wales complained of the cross-draughts when the locos were stationary or moving slowly on the newly introduced 56xx in 1924, which was claimed to be inferior in this respect to the previous Taff Vale, Barry, Rhymney etc locos. 

 

Many GW tank engines, even the big ones like the 42xx or 5101s, had fairly cramped cabs and there was little empty space that the crews could use to shelter from the wind and rain.  Followig the 56xx complaints, shutters were subsequently progressively fitted to tank engines as they were overhauled and to new builds.  The inside shutters were fitted to from new to 57xx, 8750, 54xx, 64xx, 74xx, 1366, 48xx/14xx, 58xx, 94xx, 15xx and 16xx, and retrofitted to 1361 and possibly to older panniers with 57xx-type cabs as well.  I an unable to say about Metros or 517s. 

 

Some of the Churchward designs had been in service for some time by 1924, including 44xx, 45xx, 31xx, 3150, and 42xx in South Wales and other areas where the weather can be a bit unpleasant in exposed locations, and had not attracted such criticism, but the constituent/absorbed men who became familiar with them after the grouping noticed the difference and complained, and clearly Swindon decided that they had a case!  GW designs were largely willingly accepted by such men, particularly the 57xx and 56xx, though the 56xx initially attracted criticism for poor brakes, not a desirable trait in South Wales, where you have to control heavily loaded coal trains down steep hills on wet rails!

Edited January 7, 2023 by The Johnster

[Hal Nail]

I wouldn't be remotely interested in having working shutters if it meant they were overscale personally. 

[Miss Prism]

The 44s (and to a lesser extent, those 45s not built with shutters) did receive cab shutters at a more leisurely pace compared to other tanks, and I think the main reason for this was their lower mileage, and hence less frequent works visits. In perspective, cab shutters didn't become normal until the early 30s, and at that era a large proportion (no, I haven't counted) of tanks were still open-cabbed.

 

And by that time, the 44s were half way through their working lives.

 

[Nick C]

On 17/12/2022 at 23:22, adb968008 said:

recreate this…

2 of these locos are in British liveries, but only one is British.

 

 

Well, the EP07 has British heritage too - they were based on the English Electric EU06, built at the Vulcan Foundry - which was apparently the inspiration for that livery...

 

On 17/12/2022 at 23:22, adb968008 said:

 

At one point it was going to have “ Great Western” changed to “Wielki Zachódna” 

That'd be a great way to annoy the rivet counters... 

[57xx]

On 07/01/2023 at 09:22, Hal Nail said:

I wouldn't be remotely interested in having working shutters if it meant they were overscale personally. 

 

The first thing I thought of when sliding shutters were mentioned was the old Mainline vans with sliding doors. No thanks!

 

More modern techniques might mean they can be achieved with better fidelity, but it still falls into that realm of gimmick to me, like firebox glow etc. 

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, 57xx said:

 

The first thing I thought of when sliding shutters were mentioned was the old Mainline vans with sliding doors. No thanks!

 

More modern techniques might mean they can be achieved with better fidelity, but it still falls into that realm of gimmick to me, like firebox glow etc. 

 

The cab roof shutter on my Bachmann 3MT tank is by no means overscale, and certainly a quantum step ahead of the sliding doors on the old ML LMS van, or the opening cupboard doors of the Airfix kit cattle & meat vans, or those of the old Triang boge PLV 'Utility' van.  These were characterised by being made of ridiculously thick in terms of scale, and the Airfix kits had horrible crude hinges.  The 3MT is reasonably thin plastic sheet, and slides easily but not loosely so that it can be 'posed' open, closed, or any position between.

 

The outside sliding shutters on GW side tank engines are not, I contend, gimmicks, but a significant part of the appearance of the cab profile.  Smaller engines such as the panniers, 48xx, and so on had them inside the cab, so they can be very easily modelled in any position you want as I have outlined; back in the day I had a K's kit 8750 with no cab detail, and modelled the shutters fully slid back.  With suitably positioned crew, the horrible hole where the motor showed was barely visible from most viewing angles, to the improvemnt of the appearance of this loco.  Actual sliding ones could presumably be provided, but are less of an influence on the appearance of the loco and would be fiddly to slide unless you have very delicate and nimble fingers; I don't!

 

But from time immemorial the RTR and kit trade has dealt with the outside shutters by moulding or casting them as part of the cab side sheet, in the fully open position, take it or leave it like it or not, like Bachmann and their insistence that all panniers have top-feed casings.  They've proved that it can be done, though, with the 3MT roof vent, and possibly other engines that I am not familiar with, and avoiding the overscale door thickess problem.  Things have moved on a bit since the late 70s when ML produced their LMS van, which survived in the catalogues for far too long, as did the Triang bogie van.

 

I would suggest that, at contemporary pricing levels and in line with contemporary standards of scale and detail, sliding shutters that slide should be not only possible but a standard feature.  So, IMHO, should be poseable droplights and sliding ventilators on coaching stock.  We should certainly be able to see the differently angled reflections in closed droplight door windows.  I'd like to see cab and carriage roofs that are easily detachable for the purpose of placing drivers or passengers and internal detail as well.  Gimmicky?  I don't think so, but that's only my opinion; I think DCC chuff-chuff noises are the ultimate in gimmicky gimmickry, at least the Triang Hornby FS scraper in the tender was honest rubbish that never claimed to be anything else (some DCC diesel sounds are pretty effective, but steam is a bit too complex for the chips and speakers).  But the line between details, features, and gimmicks is blurred and difficult to pin down, and very much a reflection of personal tastes and perceptions.  My view is that if it improves realism, it's a detail, if improves your disbelief suspension, it's a feature, and if it detracts from either of those, it's a gimmick and it's only purpose is to separate fools and money, scarely a worthwhile challenge.

 

Opening doors are not so easy to provide without overscale hinges or unrealistic catches, just too fragile, but there might be a call for kits that can be assembled with the doors open to posed to represent loading or unloading operations; the antediluvian Airfix plastic kits now marketed as Dapol Kitmaster were and are years ahead of the game for this purpose.  We need some parcels stock that can do this.  Worth mentioning that my Hornby large prairie came with poseable fit-it-yourself cab doors.

 

 

[rprodgers]

In a similar vein to the issue raised elsewhere about top feeds on panniers. Please can I request that the cab shutters are not integral mouldings, on the cab side, as not all of us want cab shutters on  45xx tanks.

 

 

[Miss Prism]

It is not possible to have working cab shutters in 4mm scale or anything approaching reasonable 4mm scale. They're either moulded on, or are off. There's no 'nice-to-have both'. Rapido will have to make a choice (along with many other feature choices on the models) and might offer variants on different versions.

 

 

[D9020 Nimbus]

Sliding wagon doors exist even in N gauge—both Fleischmann and Micro-Trains have produced vehicles so equipped. Also the Bachmann Narrow Gauge WD vans have this feature in 009.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

It is not possible to have working cab shutters in 4mm scale or anything approaching reasonable 4mm scale. They're either moulded on, or are off. There's no 'nice-to-have both'. Rapido will have to make a choice (along with many other feature choices on the models) and might offer variants on different versions.

 

 

 

With all due respect Ms P, I beg to differ, and contend that it is definitely physically possible,  They would certainly be no harder to provide than the sliding roof ventilators on my Bachmann 82xxx.  It would of course increase the production costs, as not only would the runners and shutter plates have to be separate items but the rivets normally hidden by a plate in the forward position would have to be included as well, but I imagine this would not be a deal-breaking extra cost per unit.  But I only have an 'imformed observer' viewpoint at best when it comes to production costing and the cost/benefit analysis that Rap would have to undertake to see if it is viable.

 

An ideal situation would be to have the whole assembly as an etched brass separate fitting in the box.  I'd suggest that Rapido are not going to be selling to 'trainset' customers but to 'serious' modellers and collectors (whatever you percieve those to be, difficult to objectively define but you know what I mean).  This would give the customers the choice of mounting them on their loco or not, and a similar approach could be adopted with top-feeds, though I realise that this might not be the best approach for Bachmann, who have one foot in the trainset world.

 

That loco looks a bit battered in close up, but very well illustrates the different cab sideview profile with the shutter in this position.  I wonder if it's jammed in that position!

[adb968008]

Who needs them moving ?

 

your not going to have mobile crew moving them.

 

just make it a separate piece and and let the modeller pose it as they wish. If using a bit of double sided tape you can change the pose at will without making a mark.

[The Johnster]

Yeah, they only need to move to be poseable!

[rprodgers]

@rapidoandy I presume that the spec for the 45xx/44xx will follow the Hunslett in having a split chassis with no separate pick ups?

[BVMR21]

I do wonder how well the split chassis works over a longer period, in terms of reliability, seeing as the general practice seems to have shied away from split chassis to wiper pickups and the like.

[RapidoCorbs]

On 15/02/2023 at 14:06, rprodgers said:

@rapidoandy I presume that the spec for the 45xx/44xx will follow the Hunslett in having a split chassis with no separate pick ups?

 

It's still in development, chassis construction method is not yet confirmed.

[rprodgers]

Thanks @RapidoCorbs for your reply.

 

Like BVMR21 I have concerns about a split chassis with the bearings as pickups.
I believe there can be a build up of contamination from lubricants onto the bearings and it is more difficult to access to clean compared to wiper pickups.

 

I am sure split chassis can be made to work well initially but they seem more at the future mercy of the lubricants migrating there or users not being as careful as they could be lubricating these models.

[The Johnster]

I like the idea of split chassis in theory, as one can dispense with wiper pickups, which should result in smoother stopping and starting and better controlled slow running, because of course even if they are perfectly adjusted they act to some extent as brakes.  It didn't work for Mainline (and it is the failure of Mainline split chassis to run well because of the pancake motors and spur gears, or to run reliably because of the failure of the interface between the stub axles and the centre plastic axles that allowed wheels to go out of quarter, and the excessive wear of the stub axles on the chassis blocks) and their failure to design their chassis well or use suitable materials is the reason for the bad reputation that these chassis still have to this day.  Those of us who own early Bachmann split chassis with can motors and worm/idler gears will be aware how much of an impovement in running can be achieved.

 

In fact, properly cleaned and adjusted modern wiper pickups on locos with powerful can motors allow very good slow running indeed compared to the pancake models of the 80s and 90s.  So split chassis have gone out of fashion; conventional wisdom is usually right. 

 

Usually, but not always, and this is not a reason that it should not be challenged.  Wiper pickups are IMHO the weakest link in current 4mm RTR locomotive design and operation; the idea that electrical conductivity has to rely on an interface where one surface moves across another one is not particularly good in engineering terms, and regular attention to adjustment and cleaning is needed. 

 

Let us examine the split chassis in terms of current collection.  The obvious advantage is the elimination of the pickups and the connection between them and the motor/chip holder feed wires, both weak points that need careful handling.  So what are the disadvantages?  Well, firstly that the centre part of the axle needs to be non-conductive, and therefore there has to be a firm joint between it and the outer stub axles to maintain quartering, critical to smooth running and if it's badly out the loco won't run at all.  Material choice is critical here; Mainline got it wrong, the soft plastic of the axle centres wore and quatering was lost.  But this is fixable with better materials and design. 

 

Alternatively, it might be possible to devise models that run on half-axles alone, with no physical connection between the wheels on opposite sides and eliminating the centre/stub axle join, something that might also facilitate a degree of compensation or suspension, which would improve pickup between the wheels and railheads, and traction.

 

Next disadvantage is the accumulation of lubricant and muck at the axle bearings, as correctly pointed out by rprodgers above.  But this is only a parallel to the same problem in as far as also it affects wiper pickups which have to be cleaned and adjusted regularly, with the attendant risk of careless adjustment causing damage.  Provided that the model's chassis design allows easy access to these bearings for regular cleaning, performance should be fine, and no adjustment is needed, just cleaning.  Spray cleaning with the lubricant replaced by syringe or drop-on-the-end-a-pin access should be easy enough.  The moving electrical interface that the pickup takes place at is at the axle bearing, not at the rim of the wheel, so there is less chance of it picking dirt up, and if it is desired to employ a wiper or sprung plunger pickup to reduce problems caused by crud build-up at the bearings.

 

I suspect we have not seen the last of split chassis.  Properly designed and built from correctly chosen, they have the potential to equal or exceed the performance of 'conventional' insulated chassis, and be more robust for owner-maintenance.  With coreless motors, frictional drag can be reduced to that from the gears, and a correctly meshed gear set can offer very low frictional drag.

[Miss Prism]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

the idea that electrical conductivity has to rely on an interface where one surface moves across another one is not particularly good in engineering terms

 

On the contrary - it is the only engineering solution. The debate focuses on the implementation. Most RTR wheel pickups are a bit rubbish because they are too inflexible in one or more planes. 'Curly-wurlies' are good, although the RTR world has yet to discover them. Minimal force, maximum pressure. And there's no lack of space above the driving wheel tyres of a small prairie.

 

[checkrail]

As someone has said earlier in this thread my main concern with an investment like this (I'll be buying one each of the three main variants at least) is that they run well, smoothly and quietly at low speeds.  I'm fed up with the hit & miss lottery with the two big manufacturers and the seeming lack of strict quality control.  You can buy three of the same model and find that one runs beautifully, one is ok, and one is a limping dog.  I'm hoping these new prairies will be top quality in performance terms.   

[phil-b259]

On 09/01/2023 at 21:58, The Johnster said:

They've proved that it can be done, though, with the 3MT roof vent, and possibly other engines that I am not familiar with, and avoiding the overscale door thickness problem. 

 

 

 

Roof vents have the advantage that their guides do not have to actually support or keep the vent stable by virtue of it being mounted in the horizontal position

 

I would contend that for things mounted in the vertical position where (where the guides also are critical in keeping something in place) the 'roof vent' method is wholly unsuitable - particularly given the potential for them to be grasped / knocked when lifting the loco on and off the layout.

 

Having the shutters as a separate detail part for the customer to fit sounds the way forward to my mind - and if people really want to be able to reposition them on a whim then a bit of 'tacky wax' (or similar) would do the job.

[The Johnster]

I’d be happy enough with that, Phil; it is analogous to my pannier shutters, plasticard glued inside the cabs. 

[rprodgers]

@RapidoCorbsWhen is there likely to be any updates on the 44xx, especially regarding what will be offered?
 

Have pre-ordered my B-set 

[RapidoCorbs]

It's currently in design stage, when the tooling variants are decided upon and finalised that will dictate running numbers and condition we are able to offer.

 

Being from the West Country myself I am looking forward to it too, so hope to update when we have more details.

[gwrrob]

On 30/03/2023 at 14:09, rprodgers said:

@RapidoCorbsWhen is there likely to be any updates on the 44xx, especially regarding what will be offered?
 

Have pre-ordered my B-set 

 

Here are some images posted by Rapido in the current newsletter.

 

 

 

 

 

[BVMR21]

Can't wait for the preorder book to open on these, the CADs are looking decent too.