Jump to content
 

Classified Documentation - An S.160 for OO

Zero Gravitas

By Zero Gravitas,
in Rapido Trains

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
The Johnster

The Johnster

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

And will it be a coreless motor again, Rapido chaps? (please say no).

 

 


What’s wrong with coreless motors?  We are going to be seeing a lot more of them in future as the Chinese can motor manufacturers seem to be increasingly favouring them.  I’ve got one in my Baccy 94xx; it’s fine!  I doubt it has any particular advantages over ‘normal’ motors, but no drawbacks either.  The one in my 94xx is free-running compared to it’s cored brethren in the otherwise similar 57xx/8750 mechs, requiring less current and a lower control knob setting to start off and at any given speed, a different driving technique but not a problem.  

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Dunsignalling

Dunsignalling

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted
32 minutes ago, The Johnster said:


What’s wrong with coreless motors?  We are going to be seeing a lot more of them in future as the Chinese can motor manufacturers seem to be increasingly favouring them.  I’ve got one in my Baccy 94xx; it’s fine!  I doubt it has any particular advantages over ‘normal’ motors, but no drawbacks either.  The one in my 94xx is free-running compared to it’s cored brethren in the otherwise similar 57xx/8750 mechs, requiring less current and a lower control knob setting to start off and at any given speed, a different driving technique but not a problem.  

The short answer is that loads of people are still using controllers from the 1960s and 1970s, some of which can damage such motors.

 

Others use high-frequency track cleaning devices, which resemble lightweight arc-welders, and tend to fry them.

 

Just two generations of tech that don't really work together.

 

John

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
rapidoandy

rapidoandy

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

Be careful everyone. It all starts off with integrating this one US loco that can "only just about" be justified and suddenly - BOOM - the door is open to all other Rapido's North American range.....

Ooooo that’s a good idea. RDC units in Network Southeast livery! Would save me tooling anything new…

  • Like 1
  • Funny 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
BVMR21

BVMR21

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The short answer is that loads of people are still using controllers from the 1960s and 1970s, some of which can damage such motors.

Random question, but has anyone done a survey to find out what the percentage of modellers using older tech compared with newer tech is?

More so because it would be fairly interesting to see what the data set would be like.

 

 

In all regards to this model though, one (or maybe 2) will most likely end up being added to my fleet, if only for the WW2 and preservation era connections. Having been after a decent 2-8-0 this should do me just fine.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hippel

Hippel

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JSpencer said:

Be careful everyone. It all starts off with integrating this one US loco that can "only just about" be justified and suddenly - BOOM - the door is open to all other Rapido's North American range.....

 

Starting with Mendip Rails switcher 44, Western Yeoman II!

 

Paul

Edited by Hippel
Spellink
  • Like 4
  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
TrevorP1

TrevorP1

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted
1 hour ago, JSpencer said:

Be careful everyone. It all starts off with integrating this one US loco that can "only just about" be justified and suddenly - BOOM - the door is open to all other Rapido's North American range.....

 

No, no, no! Everyone knows a Big Boy wouldn't be allowed over the Royal Albert Bridge!

  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Karl

Karl

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Edge said:

Not so fictional - they have appeared in BR livery in preservation :) so technically it will just be accurate modelling :)

 

(Not my photos, as always, please message me for removal if they are yours and they will be removed)

IMG_9925.jpeg

IMG_9926.jpeg

 

It's correct that 5820 carried BR black in preservation but the 2nd image of 90801 I believe is a fictitious photo with the engines black USA livery edited to be BR late crest. As far as I know only the KWVR one has carried a BR livery. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Dunsignalling

Dunsignalling

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted
2 hours ago, BVMR21 said:

Random question, but has anyone done a survey to find out what the percentage of modellers using older tech compared with newer tech is?

More so because it would be fairly interesting to see what the data set would be like.

 

 

In all regards to this model though, one (or maybe 2) will most likely end up being added to my fleet, if only for the WW2 and preservation era connections. Having been after a decent 2-8-0 this should do me just fine.

They will all need to get newer gear eventually, as coreless looks like becoming the industry standard for mass-produced small motors, and the numbers used in model trains are a tiny percentage of the total market.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
88C

88C

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

An interesting choice, but not one for me. However it has prompted me to look in my books to find photos, first of all in Brian J. Miller's book Rails To Prosperity there is a photo of 1683 in Barry shed in 1943 having apparently failed with a boiler problem. For more reading there is a chapter in David Maidment's book about GW Eight Coupled locos including a shot of stored locos at Penrhos.

 

Brian

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
Legend

Legend

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BVMR21 said:

Random question, but has anyone done a survey to find out what the percentage of modellers using older tech compared with newer tech is?

More so because it would be fairly interesting to see what the data set would be like.

 

 

In all regards to this model though, one (or maybe 2) will most likely end up being added to my fleet, if only for the WW2 and preservation era connections. Having been after a decent 2-8-0 this should do me just fine.

  What would be the cut off though ?  There are obvious old pieces of kit like H&M Clippers etc but what about Gaugemaster units . I have a DS model (still made ) but I think mine must now be 30 years old  ! Lifetime guarantee !  It does work fine with the Rails/Bachmann 812 which I am told is a Coreless motor . 

Edited by Legend
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Dunsignalling

Dunsignalling

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Legend said:

  What would be the cut off though ?  There are obvious old pieces of kit like H&M Clippers etc but what about Gaugemaster units . I have a DS model (still made ) but I think mine must now be 30 years old  ! Lifetime guarantee !  It does work fine with the Rails/Bachmann 812 which I am told is a Coreless motor . 

I have a couple of Gaugemasters that must be about the same age and they seem OK too, (Bachmann 0-4-4T etc)

 

I also have an outwardly immaculate Duette but I'd not trust that. I considered the rectification on original H&M controllers to be a bit suspect even when new!

 

HF track cleaners are the biggest no-no, though.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
papagolfjuliet

papagolfjuliet

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, QuoitsPlayer said:

Can't justify it, wrong era, none mainline certified however...

 

 

One has worked on the mainline in preservation, albeit briefly. 5820 ran light engine to the Shipley Triangle for turning during the filming of 'Yanks.'

Edited by papagolfjuliet
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
MarkSG

MarkSG

Posted
Posted

Well, well, well. I'm aleady torn over whether to place an order. If I had a bit more space (and a bit more time), this might just be the prompt I need to do the WWII themed layout that I've had in the back of my mind for a while. But, on the other hand, given that I don't really have more space and more time, this is more likely to join my other "because it's there" purchases that never go beyond the test track.

 

Back when I returned to the hobby just under 20 years ago, I told myself that I wasn't going to buy anything that didn't have a place on a layout that I was either currently building or had a realistic prosect of being built. The presence on my shelves of an APT-E, Rocket and Garrett (and forthcoming Titfield Thunderbolt) have already scuppered that ambition. I have at least used the J70s on an actual layout! 

 

Where were these actually used, in real life? Did they ever end up going down out of the way branch lines, or were they strictly main line only? Because if I can stretch Rule 1 far enough.....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
papagolfjuliet

papagolfjuliet

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted
7 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

 

Where were these actually used, in real life? Did they ever end up going down out of the way branch lines, or were they strictly main line only? Because if I can stretch Rule 1 far enough.....

 

The Neville Hill ones including the preserved 2253 definitely worked as far as Whitby, so they weren't exclusively main line machines.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
luke_stevens

luke_stevens

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MarkSG said:

 

Where were these actually used, in real life? Did they ever end up going down out of the way branch lines, or were they strictly main line only? Because if I can stretch Rule 1 far enough.....
 

 

The book I previously mentioned has them allocated to all 4 regions, running mainly freight though there ae reports of them on suburban service in Newcastle and a passenger service into St. Pancras. The book is quite certain that the didn't end up on the S&DJR but Rule 1 applies. Wikipedia give distribution as: 174 to the Great Western Railway, 168 to the London & North Eastern Railway, 50 to the London, Midland & Scottish Railway, 6 to the Southern Railway but there was (obviously) through working. There would be loco heading towards the South Coast ports for onward travel to mainland Europe. The axle load seems to have been 15t, which s a pretty much go anywhere (if it could go round the curves). In GWR terms that's a Yellow weight classification, the same as a 2251 or a light Prairie 45XX. The book also talks about the mileage they were racking up in the region of +20,000 miles per year equivalent, which is very respectable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USATC_S160_Class

https://www.lner.info/locos/O/s160.php

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Western_Railway_Power_and_Weight_Classification

 

Luke

Edited by luke_stevens
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Johann Marsbar

Johann Marsbar

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, I bought a USATC 0-6-0T liveried loco to go on a planned (but may never be built..) Military depot extension to my OO layout, so a 2-8-0 ,might well follow, even if it falls under "Rule 1/Rule 8" or whatever the designated OO "fantasy" excuse is.........

 

 

 

.

 

Edited by Johann Marsbar
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...