Rapido SECR O1 0-6-0 (OO Gauge)

[Wickham Green too]

Buffers and drawgear : - 

    All bar one of the proposed models have taper buffers which would have been correct for most of their lives. A number of locos ( of many SECR classes ) received standard Maunsell buffers in Southern Railway or B.R. days and this is depicted on 31065 ( 966011 ) BUT this was often on the front of the loco ONLY with the tender retaining its original buffers. A photo in John Scott-Morgan's East Kent Railway book shows 31065 at Shepherdswell in that condition in April 1960 - barely a year before withdrawal ..... is there evidence elsewhere that Maunsell buffers were ever fitted on the tender ?

    Throughout its existence the S.E.C.R. used a THREE-shackle screw coupling which I think originated on the S.E.R. - and later, inexplicably, appeared on the B.R. 9Fs - It would be nice to see this supplied rather than the generic type proposed.

    With the loco AND tender picking up power - how are the two coupled ?

 

[RapidoCorbs]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

Buffers and drawgear : - 

    All bar one of the proposed models have taper buffers which would have been correct for most of their lives. A number of locos ( of many SECR classes ) received standard Maunsell buffers in Southern Railway or B.R. days and this is depicted on 31065 ( 966011 ) BUT this was often on the front of the loco ONLY with the tender retaining its original buffers. A photo in John Scott-Morgan's East Kent Railway book shows 31065 at Shepherdswell in that condition in April 1960 - barely a year before withdrawal ..... is there evidence elsewhere that Maunsell buffers were ever fitted on the tender ?

    Throughout its existence the S.E.C.R. used a THREE-shackle screw coupling which I think originated on the S.E.R. - and later, inexplicably, appeared on the B.R. 9Fs - It would be nice to see this supplied rather than the generic type proposed.

    With the loco AND tender picking up power - how are the two coupled ?

 

 

Tom/Andy may confirm this but from the photos I believe 31065 had stepped buffers fitted to both ends when in the condition shown with electrification flashes. Photos I've seen show the larger buffer heads visible on the tender which should match the ones on the front end.
There are also photos of 31065 with small buffers on the back at some point (in the same livery but minus flashes).

Tender coupling is similar to that used on Lion/Stirling/Jones Goods - it pushes and clips together with multiple connection pins that go into a socket.

Edited November 10, 2023 by RapidoCorbs

[Wickham Green too]

There are actually several April '60 photos in that book. 30065 may well have gained large rear buffers and electrification flashes at a later date - but it can't have been in that condition for very long  before withdrawal !

[RapidoCorbs]

18 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

There are actually several April '60 photos in that book. 30065 may well have gained large rear buffers and electrification flashes at a later date - but it can't have been in that condition for very long  before withdrawal !

Indeed. I've not yet seen a pic of 31065 with warning flashes and small rear buffers, so this livery should be correct for this condition.

[Ventnor]

44 minutes ago, RapidoCorbs said:

Indeed. I've not yet seen a pic of 31065 with warning flashes and small rear buffers, so this livery should be correct for this condition.

Buffers etc aside, any chance of checking the chimney is the correct shape? I’m sure the curves should extend further up. I remember this being an issue with the Hornby H Class which they corrected.

 

Cheers

 

Andy.

[Miss Prism]

30 minutes ago, Ventnor said:

Buffers etc aside, any chance of checking the chimney is the correct shape? I’m sure the curves should extend further up. I remember this being an issue with the Hornby H Class which they corrected.

 

 

I always get into trouble when I say anything about chimneys, so I'm keeping my trap shut this time.

 

[Ventnor]

28 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

 

I always get into trouble when I say anything about chimneys, so I'm keeping my trap shut this time.

 

I think your trap is well and truly open!! 😉 A distinct difference between the two!! Bachmann got the correct shape of the long type of chimney on the SECR liveried C Class. Chimneys always seem contentious things……

Edited November 11, 2023 by Ventnor
Added text. Added emoji.

[roundhouse]

I recently completed a Golden Arrow kit to produce EKR number 2 so I knew some one would then annonce this model, but its going to be hard to resist a few more, one in BR livery and I can have EKR number 100 🙂.

 

Many wont know number 2 and 100 were the same loco so I might be able to get away with it on my Shepherdswell EKR layout.

[Southernman46]

Oh - what Man of Kent could fail to resist this little charmer in SE&CR colours 🥰

[RapidoCorbs]

8 hours ago, Ventnor said:

Buffers etc aside, any chance of checking the chimney is the correct shape? I’m sure the curves should extend further up. I remember this being an issue with the Hornby H Class which they corrected.

 

Cheers

 

Andy.

As far as I know it should be matching the works drawings. I am looking at them side-by-side now and they seem to match.
Whether real life mimics the drawings or not I am less sure. I will check with the CAD team.

[Ventnor]

27 minutes ago, RapidoCorbs said:

As far as I know it should be matching the works drawings. I am looking at them side-by-side now and they seem to match.
Whether real life mimics the drawings or not I am less sure. I will check with the CAD team.

It’s worth checking against the real thing. Hornby originally proposed a “parallel” chimney for their H Class based on works drawings but changed to the correct type with graceful, gentle, subtle curves. Can’t think of any SECR locomotives with a parallel chimney.

 

Apart from that, looking great!! 👍

 

Andy.

[adb968008]

Not sure which version the cad is showing in the above image, but theres an extra row of rivets on the outer diameter of the smokebox and a different lamp iron fixing, to the actual photograph on the smokebox front.

[adb968008]

22 hours ago, 60800 said:

 

My bank account is not going to look good in the last quarter of 2024 is it? 😆

Think yourself lucky you dont model Southern EMUs in the 1980’s.

Its going to be a tough christmas this year for those folks.

Edited November 11, 2023 by adb968008

[Southernman46]

or SRLY EL's as well - I am going to be on half-rations all year - well, the kids will be 👍

[rapidoTom]

13 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

There are actually several April '60 photos in that book. 30065 may well have gained large rear buffers and electrification flashes at a later date - but it can't have been in that condition for very long  before withdrawal !

 

We think, based on photos of it in '61, that it might have been spruced up a bit before the railtours, including fitting the later buffers with the larger heads. It may have spent less time in this specification, but the reason we chose it is that was famous for doing the Hawkhurst closure railtours - in its final configuration, if you will.

 

11 hours ago, Ventnor said:

I think your trap is well and truly open!! 😉 A distinct difference between the two!! Bachmann got the correct shape of the long type of chimney on the SECR liveried C Class. Chimneys always seem contentious things……

 

As Corbs says, it has been done to the drawings - we can have a look at it again to check. Given how hard the team have worked in the last couple of weeks to get these launches ready, it might have to wait until we have some spare time next week!

 

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Not sure which version the cad is showing in the above image, but theres an extra row of rivets on the outer diameter of the smokebox and a different lamp iron fixing, to the actual photograph on the smokebox front.

 

That CAD will be 65, as preserved. 65 had a rebuilt smokebox at some point in the 1940s, where it lost one set of rivets - this is reflected on the models in several of our liveries. The other "full Wainwright" version (373 in pre-grouping spec) has the extra set of rivets as they were originally built (or originally re-built from Os!), as do most of the models we're offering.

[Miss Prism]

Possibly a result of the CAD lighting on the smokebox door, but the 'merge radius' between the flat plane and the sphere segment seems too small.

 

 

 

[JSpencer]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Think yourself lucky you dont model Southern EMUs in the 1980’s.

Its going to be a tough christmas this year for those folks.

 

And then there is poor me with BOTH...

[chris45lsw]

On 10/11/2023 at 12:33, JSpencer said:

Fantastic news. 

3 SECR ones for me!  Order straight in. 65 with sound (in keeping with all bluebell locos I collect), the others plain DCC. A lot to finance! But might add EKR and BR later.....

 

@rapidoandy @RapidoCorbs Noticed that none have the "above" running plate sandbox type in the 3D images (example shown below). Are they purposely missed out? Or a detail variant to come? 

 

The majority of O1s, when they were rebuilt from Os, didn't have the combined splasher/sandbox.  Of the eight which survived beyond 1951:  31048, 31064, 31065, 31258, 31370, 31425, 31430  & 31434, only 31258  and 31434 had them.

 

I wonder if it has occurred to Rapido that the R1 0-6-0T has the same wheelbase and wheel size (and boiler) as the O1?

 

Chris KT

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

It’s southern, but it does kind of scratch the itch I have for an old fashioned yet elegant pre grouping goods engine.

 

plus it looks good on light railways.

[BMacdermott]

3 minutes ago, chris45lsw said:

I wonder if it has occurred to Rapido that the R1 0-6-0T has the same wheelbase and wheel size (and boiler) as the O1?

Chris KT

 

A good point, Chris!

 

Within The 00 Wishlist Poll, the R1 has been steadily climbing up the ranks and has been High Polling in 2018, 2019 and 2022. (The Poll didn't run in 2020 or 2021.)

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[chris45lsw]

23 hours ago, JSpencer said:

I do wonder about the EKR 100 being black. We know she was definitely black when she carried number 2.

 

However various photos taken in the 30s shown in Lawson Finch and Garret's book on the EKR all show distinction 2 tones and even possibly lining which looks more akin to other EKR locos that were painted in green rather than those we know were painted black. This is particularly evident between the tender sides and chassis.

 

The text in the same book shows that it is unsure. One though is the loco arrived in SOUTHERN lined black with EKR number and lettering. Another is that it arrived in EKR green.

According to the RCTS book, when it was sold to the EKR May 1935 it only required minor attention to the paint work so that implies it arrived in SR black re-lettered EKR and re-numbered only.  No instructions were received about what number to give it so apparently the Ashford paint shop foreman applied 100 on his own initiative to ensure no duplication occurred,

[fulton]

39 minutes ago, chris45lsw said:

 

 

I wonder if it has occurred to Rapido that the R1 0-6-0T has the same wheelbase and wheel size (and boiler) as the O1?

 

Chris KT

Hold on there with these ideas, I've recently completed a Branchlines O class and almost completed their O1, and have a Southeast Finecast R1 next on my list! but seriously I have two O1s on order, however I model in EM and these modern RTR locos do not seem easy to convert.

[JSpencer]

1 hour ago, chris45lsw said:

The majority of O1s, when they were rebuilt from Os, didn't have the combined splasher/sandbox.  Of the eight which survived beyond 1951:  31048, 31064, 31065, 31258, 31370, 31425, 31430  & 31434, only 31258  and 31434 had them.

 

I wonder if it has occurred to Rapido that the R1 0-6-0T has the same wheelbase and wheel size (and boiler) as the O1?

 

Chris KT

 

I agree  but the combined splasher/sandbox still makes up 25% of those which made to BR. This also requires a different smokebox. The R1s were also a mix of both Sandbox types too (chimneys are more complex though).

I feel the combined splasher/sandbox adds an extra charm making it even more distinct from the C. Or if running a pair of O1s, it gives a clear detailed difference between the pair.

IF sales of the O1 are good, I guess the splasher/sandbox will eventually appear....

[brightspark]

23 minutes ago, fulton said:

 however I model in EM and these modern RTR locos do not seem easy to convert.

 

That is what I am wondering. I could see these on a couple of layouts I am involved with one in EM the other in P4.

Any thoughts Tom?

 

In my dreams I can see an alternative drop in wheelset being offered, just like Sutton Locomotive Works. But it is just a dream.

[Wickham Green too]

4 hours ago, rapidoTom said:

We think, based on photos of it in '61, that it might have been spruced up a bit before the railtours, including fitting the later buffers with the larger heads. It may have spent less time in this specification, but the reason we chose it is that was famous for doing the Hawkhurst closure railtours - in its final configuration, if you will. ...

Odd how locos disappear off the radar - I've tracked down twenty four photos of '65 so far : one in the 1920's, then nothing 'til seven in 1953/4, no more 'til nine in April 1960 then seven going to or on the Hawkhurst bash ..... we'll probably never know exactly what it was like in between !!?!