New brand, new model - Rails Limited - LNER Dynamometer car

[rapidobill]

 

These may help.....

 

Bill

[Gerald Henriksen]

Sorry the Doors are no different from any other door i.e there is a gap between door and frame not a outward shaped curve as on this model.  Looks like something from the 1970's Lima or similar mouldings.

 

 

I think you should check out the prototype pictures, there most definitely is an outward shape - perhaps a piece of trimwork - on the bottom portion of the doors.

 

The steps on the wheel however look the the wheel was assembled incorrectly given that it is wrong on both sides.

[cctransuk]

I think you should check out the prototype pictures, there most definitely is an outward shape - perhaps a piece of trimwork - on the bottom portion of the doors.

 

 

He's right, you know; a beading over the gap on the lower door - presumably to act as a draught-excluder.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[micklner]

Most odd never seen that before !! . I can't tell if the "beading" also on the bottom of the doors it appears to be on some but not all of the doors.

 

I wonder if this is a preservation addition to seal the doors to prevent access? . I will have a look at the few photos I have,  when it was with Mallard in 1938.

[Roy Langridge]

Most odd never seen that before !! . I can't tell if the "beading" also on the bottom of the doors it appears to be on some but not all of the doors.

 

I wonder if this is a preservation addition to seal the doors to prevent access? . I will have a look at the few photos I have, when it was with Mallard in 1938.

Certainly look to be there in this photo: http://svsfilm.com/nineelms/coffin016.jpg

 

And, to be honest, I doubt very much the NRM would just add some bits to such a historic vehicle.

 

Roy

[Guest spet0114]

Are the 'foggy' windows going to be retained in the final model, or are they just a quirk of this sample?

Edited September 19, 2017 by spet0114

[adb968008]

I see on the prototype, there are a number of wind shields/window bars not just on end windows but also protecting the side windows On the door above the dynamometer wheel, I don't see these on the model will these be included ?

 

Is the extra wheel is just moulded on ? I know it's a gimmick, but it what makes this coach unique, and considering the price of it, this USP is this "odd number of wheels" not the point of this coach, not to have it free spinning ?

 

Does it come with interior lights I havent seen any reference to it ?

 

How about the red tail light on the upper left side coach ends ?

 

Are the buffers moulded on ? Or are they separate, sprung ? looking at the EP it's not clear, but given all metal is pronounced they suggest to look moulded plastic ? (It's also a functional question of strength..moulded plastic buffers goes back to the 70's and ebay is littered with stuff where they've broken off with simple buffer locks on curves etc).. I'm sure everyone's had a buffer come off something when shunting it'd be gutting to see it break off this and not be a separate fitting that fails safe to allow refitting)..

 

At risk of being harsh, I hope this doesn't turn into a Ratner's model, but this coach sets a new bar on price, double that of its peers latest DCC fitted toolings and triple that of its current off the shelf peers, one would expect it to stand out for the right reasons, not just because " its unique so therefore it's expensive". The tooling isn't made out of jelly, if it sells out more can be made, its limited (actually it's not "limited" it's "exclusive") only by self imposed limitations, nothing else.

 

I'm thinking it could have had representations of operable hinged doors, raising/lowering wheel, adjustable windows, maybe even a DC operated recording device and really set a new bar for modelling but instead it just looks like it could just be any other coach on my layout.

 

It's not all bad..

 

I've seen some comments on here about the raised door edges, but actually these have been captured reasonably well, the coach has indentations at the upper part, and raised edges on the lower part of the door, this has been reflected in the model, it maybe could be sharpened up a little, but it is only an EP, but they have captured it, and it's a bit unusual to see both inprototype and the human eye.

 

I can also see some of the external gauges have been captured on the frames, presumably these will be painted on the sample to be pronounced.

 

The underframe detail, whilst invisible on the layout running, has been captured in the earlier EP exceptionally well.

 

Nice to see coupling chains too.

 

But My perception today is Yes it's unique prototype but at the moment the model is just looking a bit average and priced a little high, I'm not yet seeing the value add justification, but I do really hope to be turned around and blown away at some stage as I would like one, and am happy to pay the price, but to be proud of owning it, not just because it fills a gap and left feeling a mug.

 

Don't want to get into a spat, or be a detractor I do support this model, and overall I'm not against Stallion pricing, if it's worth it, but I'm just feeling less horse more pony about it from what I've seen so far, which I find is a shame.

Edited September 19, 2017 by adb968008

[micklner]

I have been unable to find any decent photos of the 1938 spec Dyno car.

 

I have however  found this

 

http://www.loveless.co.uk/coaches_etc/index.html

 

which matches the Rapido version , so well done !! .

 

 

I presume the Stone Guards missing in the photos are to be etched items ? Bill ?

[Ian Hargrave]

If someone made an etched kit of this vehicle, and I commissioned a competent person to build and paint it to the sort of standard coming from China these days, I would not expect change from £300. £125 is a bargain!

 

The jockey   riding post 157 might like to cast his eyes on this post (apologies to my namesake for the quote but I thought it appropriate under the circumstances) ...stallion....horse...pony.. manure next up ? Seem to remember the old expression "damning with faint praise".IMHO your "judgement call"..to which you are entitled of course... is way too early and way too harsh and frankly ambivalent.

[rapidobill]

I see on the prototype, there are a number of wind shields/window bars not just on end windows but also protecting the side windows On the door above the dynamometer wheel, I don't see these on the model will these be included ?

 

Is the extra wheel is just moulded on ? I know it's a gimmick, but it what makes this coach unique, and considering the price of it, this USP is this "odd number of wheels" not the point of this coach, not to have it free spinning ?

 

Does it come with interior lights I havent seen any reference to it ?

 

How about the red tail light on the upper left side coach ends ?

 

Are the buffers moulded on ? Or are they separate, sprung ? looking at the EP it's not clear, but given all metal is pronounced they suggest to look moulded plastic ? (It's also a functional question of strength..moulded plastic buffers goes back to the 70's and ebay is littered with stuff where they've broken off with simple buffer locks on curves etc).. I'm sure everyone's had a buffer come off something when shunting it'd be gutting to see it break off this and not be a separate fitting that fails safe to allow refitting)..

 

At risk of being harsh, I hope this doesn't turn into a Ratner's model, but this coach sets a new bar on price, double that of its peers latest DCC fitted toolings and triple that of its current off the shelf peers, one would expect it to stand out for the right reasons, not just because " its unique so therefore it's expensive". The tooling isn't made out of jelly, if it sells out more can be made, its limited (actually it's not "limited" it's "exclusive") only by self imposed limitations, nothing else.

 

I'm thinking it could have had representations of operable hinged doors, raising/lowering wheel, adjustable windows, maybe even a DC operated recording device and really set a new bar for modelling but instead it just looks like it could just be any other coach on my layout.

 

It's not all bad..

 

I've seen some comments on here about the raised door edges, but actually these have been captured reasonably well, the coach has indentations at the upper part, and raised edges on the lower part of the door, this has been reflected in the model, it maybe could be sharpened up a little, but it is only an EP, but they have captured it, and it's a bit unusual to see both inprototype and the human eye.

 

I can also see some of the external gauges have been captured on the frames, presumably these will be painted on the sample to be pronounced.

 

The underframe detail, whilst invisible on the layout running, has been captured in the earlier EP exceptionally well.

 

Nice to see coupling chains too.

 

But My perception today is Yes it's unique prototype but at the moment the model is just looking a bit average and priced a little high, I'm not yet seeing the value add justification, but I do really hope to be turned around and blown away at some stage as I would like one, and am happy to pay the price, but to be proud of owning it, not just because it fills a gap and left feeling a mug.

 

Don't want to get into a spat, or be a detractor I do support this model, and overall I'm not against Stallion pricing, if it's worth it, but I'm just feeling less horse more pony about it from what I've seen so far, which I find is a shame.

Wow, that's quite a list... ;>)

 

- The instrumented wheel is a separate, but fixed, part. it does not rotate. We looked at having it rotate but in order to keep it on the rails on a second radius curve it would have had to be made well over-scale. It would have looked more like a steamroller than wheel! Not to mention that it would be out of gauge anyway for EM, P4 etc.

 

- Production models will have full interior lighting. As this is a first tooling review  sample many parts, including the electronics, are not yet fitted. The model also has a very full interior that will be painted and decorated appropriately, including all of the gauges and pipework.

 

- The buffers are separate and sprung.

 

- Not sure what DCC has to do with a passenger car model. There is no sound or decoder fitted... though we did discuss the possibility!

 

Hope that this answered some of your questions.

 

Bill

[rapidobill]

I have been unable to find any decent photos of the 1938 spec Dyno car.

 

I have however  found this

 

http://www.loveless.co.uk/coaches_etc/index.html

 

which matches the Rapido version , so well done !! .

 

 

I presume the Stone Guards missing in the photos are to be etched items ? Bill ?

There area  number of etched details that have not been fitted to this sample. Again, this is a first tooling sample to review the plastic parts an, as such, does not have etched parts or electronics fitted. That will come with the next sample. These screen captures of the CAD may give an idea of what is missing though...

 

Bill

[rapidobill]

Are the 'foggy' windows going to be retained in the final model, or are they just a quirk of this sample?

 These are first test parts. The window mould has not yet received its final polish. The production parts will be clear. Well, except for the lav window.... which is a shame really as there is full toilet detail inside.... :>)

Bill

[rapidobill]

Most odd never seen that before !! . I can't tell if the "beading" also on the bottom of the doors it appears to be on some but not all of the doors.

 

I wonder if this is a preservation addition to seal the doors to prevent access? . I will have a look at the few photos I have,  when it was with Mallard in 1938.

 The beading is shown on the original blueprints in the NRM collection, so it was there from the beginning as far as I can tell.

Bill

[Gerald Henriksen]

Is the extra wheel is just moulded on ? I know it's a gimmick, but it what makes this coach unique, and considering the price of it, this USP is this "odd number of wheels" not the point of this coach, not to have it free spinning ?

 

...

At risk of being harsh, I hope this doesn't turn into a Ratner's model, but this coach sets a new bar on price, double that of its peers latest DCC fitted toolings and triple that of its current off the shelf peers, one would expect it to stand out for the right reasons, not just because " its unique so therefore it's expensive". The tooling isn't made out of jelly, if it sells out more can be made, its limited (actually it's not "limited" it's "exclusive") only by self imposed limitations, nothing else.

 

...

 

But My perception today is Yes it's unique prototype but at the moment the model is just looking a bit average and priced a little high, I'm not yet seeing the value add justification, but I do really hope to be turned around and blown away at some stage as I would like one, and am happy to pay the price, but to be proud of owning it, not just because it fills a gap and left feeling a mug.

 

Tooling up a new model is very expensive - while we the public don't have accurate numbers it is generally considered to be at least £100,000 and for a model like this with extra tooling required, and the extra assembly costs for additional parts, your cost to produce it are substantial (yes, China is "cheap", but it is relative - it is still expensive, just not out of this world expensive).

 

At the same time, the market is very limited.  While there maybe someone out there to prove me wrong, they aren't going to sell multiple models to a given modeler, let alone many multiples (just consider the recent announcements by another retailer, where there are people talking of ordering 5 or more models.

 

In other words, this isn't a Mk2f where you can expect to sell 5 or 10 models to an average modeler, and continue selling through additional production runs for the next 10+ years.

 

And while it is true the tooling would allow for additional runs, given the uniqueness of the model if I was commissioning it and budgeting I wouldn't assume that a) it would happen and b) it would happen quickly.  Thus the tooling costs need to be covered by the initial run of models.

[G-BOAF]

Can anyone confirm whether there are significant differences (tooling and/or decoration) between the post 1948 model and the vehicle as it is preserved today?

[rapidobill]

Can anyone confirm whether there are significant differences (tooling and/or decoration) between the post 1948 model and the vehicle as it is preserved today?

The differences are primarily in the livery. The physical car did not change much after the 1920s when the later bogies and gangway connections were fitted. 

 

Bill

[adb968008]

Wow, that's quite a list... ;>)

 

- The instrumented wheel is a separate, but fixed, part. it does not rotate. We looked at having it rotate but in order to keep it on the rails on a second radius curve it would have had to be made well over-scale. It would have looked more like a steamroller than wheel! Not to mention that it would be out of gauge anyway for EM, P4 etc.

 

- Production models will have full interior lighting. As this is a first tooling review sample many parts, including the electronics, are not yet fitted. The model also has a very full interior that will be painted and decorated appropriately, including all of the gauges and pipework.

 

- The buffers are separate and sprung.

 

- Not sure what DCC has to do with a passenger car model. There is no sound or decoder fitted... though we did discuss the possibility!

 

Hope that this answered some of your questions.

 

Bill

Thank you for your timely reply, and the depth of answers, it may be worth asking Rails to promote some of these points as I just double checked their ads and they weren't mentioned... this is a move towards more reassuring.

 

Is it to late to give up on the extra wheel ? (I get the p4 bit, but in an 80/20 situation surely p4 is a minimal sale, but the USP aspect must be greater ?), could a wheel loose on an conical eggcup style axle (or place the drilled wheel centre between two inverse conical bearing cups) not give the wheel the angular flexibility on curves, The frame of which could be adjustable on the chassis for the p4 peeps, on a first radius curve I wouldn't expect the angle to be more that 20 degrees and barely noticeable on a moving train, once off the curve it would gravitate down to its natural centre, which of course is inline to the rail...with no flange to worry about and the axle height set by definition at the rail to wheel height. (Real railways have cone shaped wheels for this purpose for over 100 years, I'm suggesting do it on the axle, or on the wheel centre for a model), I've seen it done on a different rtr model but for the life of me I can't remember which it was (not uk), but was on a fixed chassis under a cab on a 4-6-2 or like to allow it round sharp curves. ( 9f 2-10-0's have an unflanged centre wheel and a fixed wheel base attracting no complaints even though it overhangs on curves and this is fixed axle and rigid chassis, it's one of the more popular classes with enthusiasts).

 

Glad also regarding the grills and access door wind shield (though the CAD doesn't show the door wind shield ?, which is on your pictures of the real thing).

 

another post here (not yours) suggested price reflected unique nature of what might be a single purchase for most people, I think that's under estimated, I suspect demand for this could be quite high, unique rolling stock isn't "unique", most people I'd generalise only own one steam crane, observation car , auto-coach, stove van, brake tender, snow plough...and this coach belongs afterall with Mallard. I do think there's potential to move this from could have to must have for many more people.

 

Finally, I should add I do like the crease in the vestibule end interior corners, nice touch.

 

Again thanks for the response, it's appreciated.

Edited September 19, 2017 by adb968008

[Gerald Henriksen]

Is it to late to give up on the extra wheel ? (I get the p4 bit, but in an 80/20 situation surely p4 is a minimal sale, but the USP aspect must be greater ?), could a wheel loose on an conical eggcup style axle not have given the wheel the angular flexibility on curves, The frame of which could be adjustable on the chassis for the p4 peeps, on a first radius curve I wouldn't expect the angle to be more that 20 degrees and barely noticeable on a moving train, once off the curve it would gravitate down to its natural centre, which of course is inline to the rail...with no flange to worry about and the axle height set by definition at the rail to wheel height.

Look at the side view of the model images posted, and look at all the detail around the extra wheel.  How do you have that detail deal with a wheel that will be twisting around - while the bottom of the wheel heads under the coach to follow the rail that means the top of the wheel must rotate outwards.

 

Then there would be the problem of actually keeping on the rail given that the wheel will inherently be raising up as the wheel swings, thus leaving the track, risking derailing the coach as it catches on something when it drops back down onto something (and even if they put a spring mechanism to lower the assembly you still would have the issue of the flange no longer being lined up with the rail).

 

I just don't see how an eggcup axle could solve the problem.

 

Finally, another post here (not yours) suggested price reflected unique nature of what might be a single purchase for most people, I think that's under estimated, I suspect demand for this could be quite high, unique rolling stock isn't "unique", most people only own one steam crane, observation car , auto-coach, stove van, brake tender, snow plough...and this coach belongs afterall with Mallard. I do think there's potential to move this from could have to must have for many more people.

It is unique.

 

You may think is belongs with Mallard, but consider:

 

1) Mallard itself had the cost advantage that the tooling was just an A4, thus spread across all the other A4 models sold (thus Mallard itself is not a "unique" model)

 

2) Many people with a model of Mallard won't be interested in running it with a Dynamometer car, rather it will just be an A4 in passenger service.

 

3) auto-coach, while more niche, is hardly unique.  A layout could have more than 1 auto-coach train, and even a single train could have 2 auto-coaches on it.  It can also be a memory for people who may have ridden on one on several of the heritage railways.

 

4) as for some of the other models, yes it may be only 1 per layout, but they are selling to a larger market - not to people who already have a model of 1 specific steam locomotive.

[Paul Cram]

Thank you for your timely reply, and the depth of answers, it may be worth asking Rails to promote some of these points as I just double checked their ads and they weren't mentioned... this is a move towards more reassuring.

 

Is it to late to give up on the extra wheel ? (I get the p4 bit, but in an 80/20 situation surely p4 is a minimal sale, but the USP aspect must be greater ?), could a wheel loose on an conical eggcup style axle (or place the drilled wheel centre between two inverse conical bearing cups) not give the wheel the angular flexibility on curves, The frame of which could be adjustable on the chassis for the p4 peeps, on a first radius curve I wouldn't expect the angle to be more that 20 degrees and barely noticeable on a moving train, once off the curve it would gravitate down to its natural centre, which of course is inline to the rail...with no flange to worry about and the axle height set by definition at the rail to wheel height. (Real railways have cone shaped wheels for this purpose for over 100 years, I'm suggesting do it on the axle, or on the wheel centre for a model), I've seen it done on a different rtr model but for the life of me I can't remember which it was (not uk), but was on a fixed chassis under a cab on a 4-6-2 or like to allow it round sharp curves.

 

Glad also regarding the grills and access door wind shield (though the CAD doesn't show the door wind shield ?, which is on your pictures of the real thing).

 

Finally, another post here (not yours) suggested price reflected unique nature of what might be a single purchase for most people, I think that's under estimated, I suspect demand for this could be quite high, unique rolling stock isn't "unique", most people I'd generalise only own one steam crane, observation car , auto-coach, stove van, brake tender, snow plough...and this coach belongs afterall with Mallard. I do think there's potential to move this from could have to must have for many more people.

 

Again thanks for the response, it's appreciated.

I hope they don't compromise the wheel for P4 as I for one will be cancelling my order if they do

[Clearwater]

I'd reckon there are more Mallards in display cabinets up and down the country than almost any other loco perhaps bar Flying Scotsman.

[Ian J.]

- Not sure what DCC has to do with a passenger car model. There is no sound or decoder fitted... though we did discuss the possibility!

 

Hope that this answered some of your questions.

 

Bill

 

For controlling lighting, providing the sound of the toilet flushing, and maybe for controlling a motor for the measurement wheel...

[Bucoops]

I'd reckon there are more Mallards in display cabinets up and down the country than almost any other loco perhaps bar Flying Scotsman.

 

Funny you should say that - all I have is FS and a Disney train.

[rapidobill]

....could a wheel loose on an conical eggcup style axle (or place the drilled wheel centre between two inverse conical bearing cups) not give the wheel the angular flexibility on curves, The frame of which could be adjustable on the chassis for the p4 peeps, on a first radius curve I wouldn't expect the angle to be more that 20 degrees and barely noticeable on a moving train, once off the curve it would gravitate down to its natural centre, which of course is inline to the rail...with no flange to worry about and the axle height set by definition at the rail to wheel height. (Real railways have cone shaped wheels for this purpose for over 100 years, I'm suggesting do it on the axle, or on the wheel centre for a model), I've seen it done on a different rtr model but for the life of me I can't remember which it was (not uk), but was on a fixed chassis under a cab on a 4-6-2 or like to allow it round sharp curves. ( 9f 2-10-0's have an unflanged centre wheel and a fixed wheel base attracting no complaints even though it overhangs on curves and this is fixed axle and rigid chassis, it's one of the more popular classes with enthusiasts).

 In a word.. no. Won't work.

 

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then here's two thousand:

 

This is taken from my drawing of the chassis. The upper view is on straight track - no problem. The lower view is superimposed on R2 track. You can see that the 9th wheel (yellow) is WELL inside the gauge, and also just how far it (and everything attached to it) would have to move laterally (out or in!) to make it work. Also, any abrupt vertical transition could have the effect of high-centering the car, leaving it tottering on the wheel.

 

The instrumented wheel was only lowered during recording runs, so our story is that the car is modelled as it would be en route to its next gig. ;>)

Bill

[rapidobill]

For controlling lighting, providing the sound of the toilet flushing, and maybe for controlling a motor for the measurement wheel...

... you forgot the working paper recording roll. ;>)

Bill

[micklner]

... you forgot the working paper recording roll. ;>)

Bill

 

Is that in the Toilet ??