Rapido/Locomotion Models GNR Stirling Single

[chris p bacon]

Not so sure about that diagnosis.Just one of the major problems with this design in small scale model form is that the leading bogie flanges barely clear under the front footplating. So it could be that the front platform is slightly high relative to the other components - most visibly the front cylinder head cover - to buy a little clearance there.

 

It is already looking far more like the prototype than the Kitmaster ever did (that would have been my 'economy' basis for  a DIY job) so Rapido are winning...

 

I think It might be a mix of the cylinder being a smidge low and the front footplate being high to accommodate wheels with flanges At the rear of the cylinder where it intersects with the footplate it should be higher (the top of the cylinder running in line with the footplate).

 

I'm with you on the last sentence.

[Hilux5972]

I do agree that certain liberties have had to be taken to ensure proper running, but that doesn't explain some of the issues. 3 are circled below, taken from the comparison photos Mike posted.

The red circle shows the difference in gap between the bottom of the mounting fillet on the frames and the top of the cylinder. The blue shows the footplating behind the cylinder, the mode showing more of the end of the footplate than the real thing. And the green is the difference in position of the Slidebar.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Hilux5972

[Miss Prism]

Hello Mr Rapido

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of splasher clearances for delicate Victorian things.

 

 

 

[Jeff Smith]

Sorry but I find this pickyness a bit trite. The prototype was scanned so Rapido does have all the accurate dimensions. Compromises have obviously had to be made not least of which is the gauge and oversized wheel flanges which to me is more noticeable than slight differences in the relationship between various features.

 

Yes, I know people are paying good money for these but the builder in me says could you do as well or better!

[Titan]

Yes, I know people are paying good money for these but the builder in me says could you do as well or better!

 

Whether I can do something better or not has absolutely no relevance or connection to whether someone else can do something better!

[GeoffAlan]

I'd love one in N gauge!

 

So jealous of our oversized brethren.

[davknigh]

Sorry but I find this pickyness a bit trite. The prototype was scanned so Rapido does have all the accurate dimensions. Compromises have obviously had to be made not least of which is the gauge and oversized wheel flanges which to me is more noticeable than slight differences in the relationship between various features.

Yes, I know people are paying good money for these but the builder in me says could you do as well or better!

Fair points! There is an obvious solution that people seem to have missed. If everyone just converted to P4 there would be no problems with flange clearances.

 

Hat, coat, gone....

 

Cheers,

 

David

[micklner]

Usual nit picking of a mock up, its not a finished item.

 

No one has mentioned the the Footplate on the Loco, is out of line compared to the Tender in the original photo as well. Lowering the Loco footplate would also cover the slider at the same time. Perhaps the  preserved Loco is different from that photo?  That is the Loco thats needs to be compared with the model, not others.

 

 

To me at this stage of development  it looks excellent.

[Jeff Smith]

Whether I can do something better or not has absolutely no relevance or connection to whether someone else can do something better!

It was a somewhat rhetorical question.

[Jeff Smith]

Fair points! There is an obvious solution that people seem to have missed. If everyone just converted to P4 there would be no problems with flange clearances.

Hat, coat, gone....

Cheers,

David

Yes, great if your layout had only scale curves, otherwise even P4 needs compromises to be practical.

[Guest Midland Mole]

Does anyone know when the preserved No.1 stopped being kept in working condition? I have seen some videos of it running on the GCR in the mid-80s, but when did it become a static exhibit?

Alex

Edited July 29, 2017 by Midland Mole

[cctransuk]

That confirms that the cylinder is definitely sitting too low. The smokebox sides look like they extend too far down, having the knock on effect of pushing the cylinder down.

 

The chimney looks to be too tall, too.

 

Unfortunately, the character of the loco front end seems to be disproportionally altered by these two, relatively small errors; there is something of an LNWR look about the model.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[No Decorum]

We were having a discussion/argument in the shop the other day about actual and perceived problems with products released and the level of nitpickyness in the hobby. The whole saga came to an end when someone made a good point, how can you complain about very minor details being slightly wrong on a loco/wagon/coach when the whole scale in which we model (we OO gauge modellers) is wrong. People would not need to convert things to P4/EM if the track and locos were the right scale in the first place.

As long as manufacturers stick to OO gauge, then nothing will ever technically be 100% correct and in scale. My belief has always been, and will always be, that if a model looks 95-99% right then I am fine with spending money on it. I defy anyone to find me any model of anything made for a large scale commercial market that is 100% accurate and no faults can be found with it, no matter how minor. Find me any thread on RMweb for a product by one of large manufacturers where NO ONE has mentioned something they see wrong with it.

 

Rant mode off, back to topic. Having seen the mock up, I cant wait to see painted samples/colour mock ups.

Alex

Perhaps it would have been nice from our point of view if manufacturers post-war had decided to go for H0 or even 00 with scale track. I know that’s a contradiction in terms but I hope you know what I mean. They didn’t, probably because they still had their pre-war moulds.

 

Major RTR manufacturers have tried British H0 and it has been a flop. I don’t think a major RTR manufacturer has tried P4. The reason is obvious – why would people buy models which jar visually with what they already have and why would they buy models which won’t run on the track which they already have?

 

Some 00 track can be made to look very convincing. Even if track does look odd, I don’t think it should stop manufacturers trying to produce ever-better models. If they had never started to improve models from immediate post-war standards, just think what we would be stuck with now!

[Guest Midland Mole]

Even if track does look odd, I don’t think it should stop manufacturers trying to produce ever-better models.

 

I could not agree more, and I think we are incredibly lucky to have such stunning models available to us these days.

Alex

[Jeff Smith]

From the side OO can look quite good with decent track, ie 1/76 spaced sleepers. It is only really let down by the oversized wheel flanges, not so noticeable on D/E locos. What I think really hamstrings the OO RTR designers is having to cope with 'train-set' radii.

 

IIRC there was a suggestion soon after this loco was announced that perhaps there should be 'finescale' RTR standard that had much larger minimum radius restrictions, say 48". I believe P4 is usually based on at least 60"radius.

[gr.king]

Shortening of the chimney ought to be relatively simple job for real modellers should the finished product turn out to be as shown in the latest images. Very patient and careful filing and packing might even allow the cylinders and slidebars to be raised up by anybody keen enough and skilled enough to have a go.

 

If we're being absolutely pedantic, the front face of the sandbox appears a shade narrow compared to the prototype photo offered up for comparison, not that I would lose any sleep about that. Changing it on a completed model would be a real pain given that the sandbox is integral with that slotted splasher!

 

As we don't know how the body is actually to sit on the chassis, speculation is rather tricky, but if the body and the cylinders as a unit were made to pivot (with freedom only to tilt slightly up and down, not side to side) on some part of the chassis between the driving wheels and the (also driven) trailing wheels, with the front of the "tiltable" body actually resting on the bogie, then the problem of making adequate allowance for full size bogie wheels and overscale flanges under the low front running plate would be greatly eased, the running plate automatically rising and falling with the bogie as the latter follows the track. There would also be no risk of the heavy metal body trying to nose dive, nor any chance of the bogie lifting the front end of the powered chassis on uneven track in such a way that traction or pick-up was impaired.

Edited July 29, 2017 by gr.king

[gr.king]

I believe P4 is usually based on at least 60"radius.

I know of one very nice GCR P4 layout that runs well, whose owner admits to having curves as tight as 2' 8" radius in places, although that's not really an "on topic" matter here I suppose.

[Edwardian]

 

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.

 

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.

 

Well, I would still have liked an explanation from the manufacturer of the issue of the height at which the front footplate meets the cylinder, and the height of the footplate above the top slide-bar.

 

I find the height at which the front footplate meets the cylinder case does affect the visual balance quite noticeably, so I would have said it was something to avoid if possible.  I had hoped that this was merely the result of the EP components not being snuggly fitted, but now I am not so sure.  So, I remain interested to know if this is an intended and necessary compromise, as I suspect may be the case. 

 

In addition to Hilux's pictures of today, I re-post mine to show that, as one would expect, the issue is the same for the preserved No.1

Edited July 29, 2017 by Edwardian

[Godfrey Glyn]

Some photos I took back in March at NRM York. They don't cover all the questions by any means but the top slide bar is certainly well up under the footplate. How to achieve the bogie splashers must be causing Rapido huge problems and certainly the front end view will be very different in the 00 model. I rather suspect that it is impossible to accurately model No 1 in 00 if the model is expected to run around the curves usually found on UK layouts, still they did it with APT(E) though even there it might have been better, certainly easier, if they had designed it just to cope with third radius curves. Looking forward to getting mine, at least I will understand the challenges they have set themselves!

 

all the best

Godfrey

[Miss Prism]

Nice pics.

[billbedford]

I find the height at which the front footplate meets the cylinder case does affect the visual balance quite noticeably, so I would have said it was something to avoid if possible. 

 

 

But only because you have seen photos magnified many times over on your computer scree. I suspect that if you had bought one of these models without seeing such oversized renderings you would have been satisfied with the overall impression rather that having your eye drawn to minor misalignments of some of the components.

[cctransuk]

But only because you have seen photos magnified many times over on your computer scree. I suspect that if you had bought one of these models without seeing such oversized renderings you would have been satisfied with the overall impression rather that having your eye drawn to minor misalignments of some of the components.

 

No, sorry Bill - as soon as I saw the EP photo I knew that something wasn't right; it said LNWR, not GNR, to me.

 

Admittedly, it wasn't until I saw the side-by-side photos (above) that I managed to identify the features that explained my reaction - but I knew it wasn't right straight away.

 

It was the too-flat curve down from the smokebox to the cylinders that was the chief give-away.

 

....... and I know NOTHING whatsoever about Mr. Stirling's output, beyond having seen many photos of No.1 over the last 50+ years.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Edwardian]

But only because you have seen photos magnified many times over on your computer scree. I suspect that if you had bought one of these models without seeing such oversized renderings you would have been satisfied with the overall impression rather that having your eye drawn to minor misalignments of some of the components.

 

No, not at all.  The EP struck me as wrong because I am familiar with the appearance of the prototype (as a frequent visitor to Shildon - those were my photographs I used, and I've taken many of them!), but thanks for trying to tell me why I think the way I do!

 

This may be an historic first, but I agree with Mr Isherwood!

[G-BOAF]

Just to echo, running plate/cylinder interface does look wrong - the main running plate should smoothly adjoin the smokebox/cylinder curve, rather than sitting proud.

The cylinder faces look to low when compared to the cylinders (they protrude below the cylinders when they should be flush - visible on the 3d print, and now gone through to tooled model as well...). If parts are indeed too low, this would seem an odd compromise - I would have thought parts needed raising in order to get round curves etc. This certainly affects the look of the model.

As for the chimney, I would say the flair at the bottom end is too tight, i.e. the transition does not extend far enough up the chimney.

 

Comments from Rapido/Locomotion would be welcomed. This is not criticism for the sake of it - we all want this to be the best possible model, and if there are errors that the factory have introduced/perpetuated, it is important that Rapido are aware if they are not already.

[chris p bacon]

 

 

 

Two days ago, we received the stunning 2nd EP pre-production sample of our OO Gauge model of GNR Stirling Single No. 1, 

The latest sample (photographs above and below) has performed extremely well over some complex and demanding track-work and both forward and reverse running are excellent. There is more detailing still to be added (like the front bogie splashers) as we proceed to the next stage of livery sample. Production will start shortly after that. Delivery to the UK is estimated to be later this year.

 

We are working very closely with Rapido to achieve the highest possible quality production, for which they are renowned. 

 

 

 

 

 visible on the 3d print, and now gone through to tooled model as well.

 

Comments from Rapido/Locomotion would be welcomed. This is not criticism for the sake of it - we all want this to be the best possible model, and if there are errors that the factory have introduced/perpetuated, it is important that Rapido are aware if they are not already.

 

The press release states its 2nd EP and pre-production sample, so I wonder if there are still some details to be dealt with.

 

There is the scenario that Rapido could  make an absolutely accurate model of No 1 but we could never run it due to the complete lack of clearances at 4mm to the foot.  Maybe next time a Millholme kit comes up on Ebay I ought to bid on it to see the alternative......or maybe not..