Rapido/Locomotion Models GNR Stirling Single

[Edwardian]

It is shaping up to be a lovely model, and one that I certainly intend to own in due course. I certainly appreciated both Tony Wright's superb shots of the sample on the Gresley Beat and G-BOAF's constructive criticisms.

 

Mould lines abound and the panel fit is reminiscent of British Leyland's finest years, but l assume that these are merely the rough edges of the sample that will be knocked off in due course. To see the thing at York and now study the photographs is exciting.

 

To illustrate G-BOAF's very helpful points, I re-post a cropped version of Mr Wright's picture beside my own snap of the real thing.  These are minor points and should be easy to correct before production. 

[Coach bogie]

 

The brake rods across the front drivers should be near horizontal.

 

 Would they still be near horizontal with the brakes off?

 

Mike Wiltshire

[G-BOAF]

 Would they still be near horizontal with the brakes off?

 

Mike Wiltshire

From what I can tell from this grainy video, yes...

https://youtu.be/EgDM3IlhC1w?t=121

[Edwardian]

There is much superb and intricate detail observable on the sample model, which compares well with the picture of the prototype.  I find it very impressive.

 

To add an accuracy observation or two of my own, I think the buffer heads on the sample model look too small, and too small in proportion to the buffer shanks.  

 

Comparing the two pictures above, I wonder, does it strike anyone else that way?

 

There is something very adrift with the rear of the bogie splashers, but I assume that it has simply gone astray.

 

The guard around the rod/crosshead guides should have a larger radius curve and extend up to the frames.

 

Again, these seem minor points that are likely to be corrected in due course.

 

One point troubles me, though, and that is that the frames at the front are set too high in relation to the face of the cylinder.  If in doubt, court the rivets on the cylinder head!  

 

I wonder if this is thought necessary to give adequate clearance for the bogies?  Whatever the reason, it does throw the front of the locomotive out of proportion somewhat, IMHO.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Edwardian

[ikks]

I wish I could afford one............it looks lovely

 

Mike

[Andy Hayter]

There is much superb and intricate detail observable on the sample model, which compares well with the picture of the prototype.  I find it very impressive.

 

 

 

 

 

One point troubles me, though, and that is that the frames at the front are set too high in relation to the face of the cylinder.  If in doubt, court the rivets on the cylinder head!  

 

I wonder if this is thought necessary to give adequate clearance for the bogies?  Whatever the reason, it does throw the front of the locomotive out of proportion somewhat, IMHO.

 

 

I suspect you are right and this is related to getting model wheels (with flanges and guards) round tighter than prototype curves

[Roy Langridge]

Is this going to be another superb loco whose credibility is undermined by comparing enlarged photos to spot minor errors that would otherwise go unnoticed?

 

I think this forensic examination of photographs has now gone way too far and will impact the availability of future models by damaging sales and therefore a desire to be in the UK market.

 

If we only see errors through such detailed examination, they are not that bad.

 

Roy

[Edwardian]

I wouldn't agree that the height of the front frames in relation to the cylinders is a minor error only noticeable by comparing enlarged photographs.  It struck me as a rather obvious distortion affecting the overall appearance of the front end.

 

That said, if it proved to be a necessary engineering compromise (and I think it is an impressive feat that Rapido can make such an accurate working model of this prototype RTR in OO), then Rapido cannot really be taken to task.  But I think I will raise it with Rapido and see what answer I get.

 

No, it doesn't decide me against purchasing the model, but it would be better to have it corrected than not, if possible. 

 

The error into which Mr Langridge has fallen is to assume that that damaged sales and discouraged manufacturers (even were this to happen) would be a function of "this forensic examination of photographs".  Clearly any such effects would be a function of producing inaccurate models rather than a function of people noticing the inaccuracies.

 

But I won't have it that the contributions thus far have been anything other than constructive, and I am sure that this model will be a success and achieve the benchmark of superb.  I wouldn't talk of it in the same breadth as certain error-strewn models from other small manufacturers/commissioners.

 

I am sure that the Single will do deservedly well and that Mr Langridge's fears will prove unfounded.     

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 I think not. An EP is undertaken to show where the fits need work. The running plate is a tad high relative to both the cylinder head and top slide bar, Get that footplate snugged down on these components and the gap between smokebox fairing and cylinder closes up too.

 

It was the socking great crankpin that jabbed me in the eye, but I am sure that's just a 'fit together' component rather than representative of the final appearance.

 

...There is something very adrift with the rear of the bogie splashers, but I assume that it has simply gone astray...

 Go back to the underside photo, (a couple of pages back) and the bogie splashers are positioned 'outboard' for the negotiation of our tight model curves. If I understood the text correctly, the splashers are to be poseable, inboard for correct appearance but the model then confined to near straight track, outboard to get around curves. Good solution for what is otherwise 'impossible'.

[JSpencer]

There is much superb and intricate detail observable on the sample model, which compares well with the picture of the prototype.  I find it very impressive.

 

To add an accuracy observation or two of my own, I think the buffer heads on the sample model look too small, and too small in proportion to the buffer shanks.  

 

Comparing the two pictures above, I wonder, does it strike anyone else that way?

 

There is something very adrift with the rear of the bogie splashers, but I assume that it has simply gone astray.

 

The guard around the rod/crosshead guides should have a larger radius curve and extend up to the frames.

 

Again, these seem minor points that are likely to be corrected in due course.

 

One point troubles me, though, and that is that the frames at the front are set too high in relation to the face of the cylinder.  If in doubt, court the rivets on the cylinder head!  

 

I wonder if this is thought necessary to give adequate clearance for the bogies?  Whatever the reason, it does throw the front of the locomotive out of proportion somewhat, IMHO.

 

If anything, the cylinder seems to be sitting almost a mm too low (along with the slide bars). I think I see a slight gap between the top of cylinder and where it should the fairing of the smokebox on the model.

 

Concernig the prototype, it is remarkable a further batch was built 25 years after the original batch. I bet they thought they had obtained perfection and no further development in steam express technology was required! Imagine if they could have used aluminum back them, they could have had ultra light coaches with plain simple aluminum seats! Boy it must have been a journey taking these small coaches going from London to Scotland.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It is the first truly successful steam express design in the UK, and the foundation for all that followed. The format of a leading bogie, cylinders between the bogie wheels, makes for a stable fast loco, and not significantly improved upon thereafter to the end of steam. All the subsequent UK single and 4-4-0 designs are more or less copies of this format, which then progresses along several lines of devlopment into 4-4-2, 4-6-0 and 4-6-2 types.

[Edwardian]

I suspect you are right and this is related to getting model wheels (with flanges and guards) round tighter than prototype curves

 

To produce a working model of such a complex prototype is probably bound to involve some compromises.  As I say, I think  the thing to do is to ask Rapido about this and see what they say.  If that is a compromise we are asked to live with, I am sure many will.

 

Yes, I took it as read that poor fit will be corrected, but, whatever is said about the height of running plate in general, there is a significant difference between the model and the prototype where the front running plate meets the cylinder.   

 

We may have to live with that.

[Edwardian]

If anything, the cylinder seems to be sitting almost a mm too low (along with the slide bars). I think I see a slight gap between the top of cylinder and where it should the fairing of the smokebox on the model.

 

 

 

I didn't at first get your drift because it looks as if the front frames are attached to the cylinder face on the model.

 

But I believe what you say above is correct.  If one looks at the cylinder in relation to the centre of the bogies, it appears that the cylinder sits lower on the model than on the prototype.  This is also the case in relation to the slide bars, as you say. The running plate aft of the cylinder on the model is relatively higher, so does not sit snugly over the top slide bar.

 

If you assume that on the model the front frame is not necessarily joined to the cylinder face where shown, I understand your point that raising the cylinder corrects the apparent distortion. Presumably, then, the front frame is at the correct height but the cylinder just sits a little too low on the sample.

 

So, it might well be no more than a fit issue, to be picked up on before it goes into production.  If so, that is good news and thank you for pointing it out. I think I will see what Rapido may say.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Edwardian

[rapidobill]

 Would they still be near horizontal with the brakes off?

 

Mike Wiltshire

They would be horizontal if they had mounting pins on both ends..... :>)

 

I was careful to point out at the show, but will reiterate here, that these are the very first parts from the moulds, cobbled together in a hurry by the factory engineers and myself just before the show. They should not be considered as the final product. There will be numerous small changes based on a review of these samples. Also, some of the parts did not yet have mounting holes (brake rods!) and the wire parts are hand-formed and several mounting screws were missing - most notably the ones at the front that pulled the smokebox down onto the cylinder block.

 

Having said all that, I was pretty happy with the way that they looked and operated!

 

Bill

[Roy Langridge]

I am sorry if you think my comments unfounded, but it just such debate that has continued along a downward spiral on other models with poster after poster seemingly hell-bent on finding faults.

 

I was in Kernow yesterday looking at the gate stock - and it is lovely (but not my era) yet it was been described as a car-crash - in my opinion grossly unfairly. Ok, I do not know the stock in detail, but there were no glaring errors, 99.99% of people will be happy

 

I fear that this thread will go the same way.

 

Roy

Edited April 21, 2017 by Roy Langridge

[No Decorum]

Is this going to be another superb loco whose credibility is undermined by comparing enlarged photos to spot minor errors that would otherwise go unnoticed?

 

I think this forensic examination of photographs has now gone way too far and will impact the availability of future models by damaging sales and therefore a desire to be in the UK market.

 

If we only see errors through such detailed examination, they are not that bad.

 

Roy

I dare say that the redoubtable Rapido will pick up most of the points without help but, just in case something slips through, I can’t see anything but good coming from pointing things out. I have one with sound on order and I am pleased that possible problems have been highlighted. It’s an EP – there are bound to be things wrong. That’s the point of an EP – to enable a better model to be produced. You’re doing very well so far, Bill!

 

One thing I shall mention. I had the privilege of a few words with Bill himself at the APT-E launch and he told me he had been eyeing up a lot of steamers with inside motion. Seeing that this model has inside motion, I was quite surprised at how expensive it is compared to the APT-E. Watching it develop, I’m not surprised any more!

[G-BOAF]

They would be horizontal if they had mounting pins on both ends..... :>)

 

I was careful to point out at the show, but will reiterate here, that these are the very first parts from the moulds, cobbled together in a hurry by the factory engineers and myself just before the show. They should not be considered as the final product. There will be numerous small changes based on a review of these samples. Also, some of the parts did not yet have mounting holes (brake rods!) and the wire parts are hand-formed and several mounting screws were missing - most notably the ones at the front that pulled the smokebox down onto the cylinder block.

 

Having said all that, I was pretty happy with the way that they looked and operated!

 

Bill

Thanks Bill

I can see now the back end of the brake rigging is not properly located!

Of course an cobbled together EP will have imperfections. This said, better we pick up on things to be told they are a function of cobbling together, than other discrepencies go unnoticed!

This is the trade off between showing an early EP to the world and keeping everything under wraps!

 

Shaping up to be a fantastic model!

[JSpencer]

To produce a working model of such a complex prototype is probably bound to involve some compromises.  As I say, I think  the thing to do is to ask Rapido about this and see what they say.  If that is a compromise we are asked to live with, I am sure many will.

 

Yes, I took it as read that poor fit will be corrected, but, whatever is said about the height of running plate in general, there is a significant difference between the model and the prototype where the front running plate meets the cylinder.   

 

We may have to live with that.

 

Indeed looking at the close up of the cylinder on the model, there is still a huge air space between it and were it is supposed to join everything. Constructive feedback, I guess is welcome to Rapido, but I equally suspect that they don't expect us to go and buy mastic guns to fill the gaps and this is just a consequence of putting the parts together from the first shot.

[Edwardian]

I am sorry if you think my comments unfounded, but it just such debate that has continued along a downward spiral on other models with poster after poster seemingly hell-bent on finding faults.

 

I was in Kernow yesterday looking at the gate stock - and it is lovely (but not my era) yet it was been described as a car-crash - in my opinion grossly unfairly. Ok, I do not know the stock in detail, but there were no glaring errors, 99.99% of people will be happy

 

I fear that this thread will go the same way.

 

Roy

 

I refer you to recent (evidence-based) discussions on Model Rail Forum in relation to the Gate Stock, and will say nothing about it here. Pretty does not necessarily equal accurate.  Pretty and accurate is probably best. Though if pretty alone satisfies, then  so be it.

 

This thread has the advantage of being about a model that will doubtless represent the highest standards of RTR production and prototype fidelity, so, again, I suggest the concerns are misplaced.

 

They would be horizontal if they had mounting pins on both ends..... :>)

 

I was careful to point out at the show, but will reiterate here, that these are the very first parts from the moulds, cobbled together in a hurry by the factory engineers and myself just before the show. They should not be considered as the final product. There will be numerous small changes based on a review of these samples. Also, some of the parts did not yet have mounting holes (brake rods!) and the wire parts are hand-formed and several mounting screws were missing - most notably the ones at the front that pulled the smokebox down onto the cylinder block.

 

Having said all that, I was pretty happy with the way that they looked and operated!

 

Bill

 

I'll add my thanks.  I hope it is clear that the necessary imperfections of such a sample are understood.  Sometimes it is a little hard to judge what is merely the result of the state of the sample and what isn't, so I hope it is not taken amiss if things are raised out of an abundance of caution that might simply 'fall away' as you proceed to production.

 

Congratulations on the job so far and I look forward to the release in due course.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Edwardian

[davknigh]

FWIW, Rapido have form when it comes to getting things right. Canadian modellers are just as fussy about their models are are British and when Rapido introduced their EPs on Canadian fora the comments flew thick and fast and Rapido listened. The nose on the FPA-4 and the FP9A both underwent several rebuilds to get them right. So have faith, if the job can be done it will be done 'cos Canadians know how to count rivets too, eh?

 

Usual disclaimer, just a happy punter who knows good modelling when he sees it.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[The Stationmaster]

They would be horizontal if they had mounting pins on both ends..... :>)

 

I was careful to point out at the show, but will reiterate here, that these are the very first parts from the moulds, cobbled together in a hurry by the factory engineers and myself just before the show. They should not be considered as the final product. There will be numerous small changes based on a review of these samples. Also, some of the parts did not yet have mounting holes (brake rods!) and the wire parts are hand-formed and several mounting screws were missing - most notably the ones at the front that pulled the smokebox down onto the cylinder block.

 

Having said all that, I was pretty happy with the way that they looked and operated!

 

Bill

 

Bill

 

If they all get hacked off with this one you could always turn to the rather attractive singles produced under the auspices of Mr William Dean  (after you've done his dynamometer car - Devon can be very pleasant to visit - and a 43XX of course),

 

As far as the Stirling Single is concerned it is clearly an EP (and it's only an EP) and I'm quite sure we can trust you and your boss, let alone the NRM folk, to serve up a decent model because that's your track record at Rapido.

[Edwardian]

I think this will be a splendid and ground-breaking locomotive.

 

I have always accepted what Rapido says concerning its philosophy at face value.  It has, after all, a proven track record in North American outline and has delivered a superb APTE. Other smaller players in the UK market have made ambitious claims only to fall short of them.  Rapido is the only new entrant to UK-outline that seems deserving of considerable confidence.

 

Any points I make are intended to be constructive, and I believe that is true of all the other recent posts I have seen on this topic. I think this is a project that is worthy of both support and confidence. I just want to be clear about this, as there is a tendency on RMWeb to assume that any criticism is bad and is motivated by a desire to do-down a product.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

To see Hardwicke, Gladstone, a Dean Single and a Johnson Spinner, not to mention pre-Grouping coaching stock and more workaday locomotives like the 4300, produced by Rapido would be a great thing.   I would be confident that they would be as accurate as could reasonably be expected, be free from error and poor quality control and be technically well conceived and reliable.

 

As a model I believe the Stirling Single will be as 'iconic' as the prototype.  How many models can you say that about?

[gr.king]

I'm not convinced that the cylinders as a whole are too low. Why on earth would Rapido put them any lower than they need to be, given that the problem of bogie wheel clearance is an acute one anyway? I'm not convinced that the front frames and running plate are too high either. The lifting holes certainly look a bit too big, and the point about the handrail shape and the buffer holes is true, but any half decent modeller could rectify those minor points.

What I believe I AM seeing are the circular end-plates on the cylinders sitting too low in relation to the centre line of the "body" of the cylinder. This puts the studs in the wrong (too low) places, giving the illusion that other parts are in the wrong positions. There are a lot of mould lines out of register on top of the cylinders too. Is it simply that the two or more parts of the mould for the cylinder have not lined up as they should?

With a solid metal "slab" running plate for weight, rather than a thin platform sitting on angle irons, there simply won't be any space to accommodate the upper slide bar out of sight as on the real thing - unless there's a slot in the underside of the running plate which the slidebar on the test model hasn't found.

Edited April 21, 2017 by gr.king

[G-BOAF]

Jumping ahead a few stages to the livery.

Will she be 'as preserved' with the 'No 1' on the loco and 'GNR' on the tender at different heights?

the loco lettering obviously lines up with the Sturrock Tender GNR lettering, while the lettering on the new GNR tender is at the correct height for that tender.

Could the NRM be persuaded to 'correct' this before the model is produced...?

Edited April 21, 2017 by G-BOAF

[Jeff Smith]

My sympathies lie with Rapido and the difficult decision to be taken regarding early revealing of products - you're dammned if you do and you're dammned if you don't.....

 

I hope that Rapido is able to correct some if not all of the points noted however some are obviously due to early prototyping and will be corrected by appropriate production assembly.

 

Whilst this model and gauge is not my area of interest I wish Rapido well and hope that the finally delivered product lives up to the customers' expectations.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Jeff Smith