Jump to content
 

Rapido/Locomotion Models GNR Stirling Single


61661
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Tender drive is fine for pulling power but it means there's no way to capture the possibility of wheelslip. There's something quite fun about putting a loco on the edge and starting away a train realistically actually 'driving it', we could put a nice heavy twin bogie drive in the first coach too ;)

Models always pull more, easily, than the real locos do even up trainset gradients. No I'd rather have the traction limited to realistic levels on the average layouts tight curves and 1:30 hills as in miniature it will be much heavier than the real one.

With Rapido's experience in diesel outline maybe tender drive would indeed be an option?

 

The bit about wheelslip is of course very relevant to singles - they were notoriously prone to slip when starting heavy trains although the arrival of steam sanding did much to extend their lives as a wheel arrangement; leading to what were arguably some of the most beautiful of the lot, including another one in the National Collection of course.  And talking of that other one as the Midland singles spent time in their later years working coal trains on the MML (yes, really) at least it would be one with some rolling stock vaguely suitable for it already on the market ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

From Bills comments in the video he obviously hopes for loco drive as he was talking about weight distribution. No doubt mockups will be tested and if all else fails there's the Bachmann Emily geared drive to the single and one of the smaller ones too.

Any chance of an optional speaker space in the smokebox chaps even if it means removing a small seperate weight? One thing I hate is speakers in tenders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speculation. A divisive subject.

 

Political rant follows. To avoid it, jump to *** below or skip this post!

 

Under certain circumstances of imperfect markets, it can be argued that a degree of arbitrage is helpful in oiling the wheels. Again under certain circumstances, futures speculations can even out market fluctuations. But, even then, a high price is or can be paid by those not privy to the market. In extreme cases it leads to the starvation and food riots across the developing world as we've seen in the past couple of years.

 

In general, spivs and profiteers, who are people who rely on or even generate imperfect markets, are despised, for good reason (particularly but not only if the goods involved, such as food, are more critical than model engines). In many countries, especially but by no means only in war time, it's a death sentence.

 

We live in a liberal, or neo-liberal, society: speculation is permitted, under considerable protest. However; restricting a market to help speculators (as opposed to, say, protecting patents) is almost universally a civil or criminal offence in most ordered countries. Again, in China, it can be punished by death. That, living in a neo-liberal society, we suffer an increasingly insoucient, divided and economically inefficient society, may have come to your notice; some of the more left-politically driven amongst us may feel aware of an unhealthy link between a neo-liberal government (which claims to be deristricting the economy) and precisely those speculators benefitting from restrictions, including speculatory, which remain untouched.

 

*** So. What to make of admitted, if not proud, speculators who want to see the output of models trains restricted, so that people who want the models go without in favour of those who want to make a profit? Well, nobody is going to starve or go without necessities as a result, so a death sentence would probably be a bit ott.

 

But I hope that in my poor way I have demonstrated why I don't find speculators attractive. And I hope that some people, reading my post here, may agree with me that another post, seeking speculative restriction of our little market, has actually been profoundly political, as well as provocative and - frankly, to me - offensive. And, by the way, I didn't like spivs long before I understood why, which is why there are one or two shops I won't touch, even though it means cutting off my nose...

 

PostScript: it would be quite wrong to take my rant here as in any way seeking to deny anyone's right to have a diametrically opposed opinion to mine, or to try to stop them from expressing it. But, if you express provocative opinions, even unitentionally, you may expect that someone like me will rise to the bait. I hope, of course, that you will either argue your corner or concede. Or you can just ignore me, of course!

 

Edited for typos.

 

Read this three times and I'm pretty sure all you said was that you don't like "speculators" because you don't like "speculators". And the Chinese REALLY don't like "speculators".

 

I also think you popped in a claim that "speculators" could or would prevent modellers from buying this latest offering.

 

I suspect your problem is with a hypothetical scenario something like where Rapido offers a never to be repeated limited edition which are all bought up by an unscrupulous individual who resells them for a huge profit i.e. totally different to what is actually happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ronny writes (above):

 

I'm pretty sure all you said was that you don't like "speculators" because you don't like "speculators". And the Chinese REALLY don't like "speculators".

 

I also think you popped in a claim that "speculators" could or would prevent modellers from buying this latest offering.

 

I suspect your problem is with a hypothetical scenario something like where Rapido offers a never to be repeated limited edition which are all bought up by an unscrupulous individual who resells them for a huge profit i.e. totally different to what is actually happening.

"Speculators"? Why the inverted commas? People who invest other than in capital or infrastructure, in the hope of speculative profit... And who seek a restricted market where none is pre-existing... No inverted commas needed, I think!

 

The suggestion in your final paragraph is an Aunt Sally, with no bearing on anything I said.

 

I should have made it clearer that I was reacting to a particular post, and perhaps I should have explained which one. I didn't do so because I wanted to avoid being personal, as far as possible. The poster quoted does make it clear that (s)he'd like to see the market restricted - which is fair enough, even if some of us can't agree. But then goes on to say that it is Not really good enough and a politician type answer that a commitment to such a restriction is or is not being made. It is at this point that my response becomes valid.

 

I quote the post concerned below.

 

(Break for a moment due to spoilt dog demanding attention. Weimaraner: boy do they demand!)

 

I'm afraid that was as clear as mud as to the format of the offer. Pre-orders, quantity limits, re-runs etc.

 

Mr Greenwood said at 8 mins in: "decision not yet taken". To be honest, for those considering purchase as an investment (don't criticise me for that, money's good as anyone's) it really needs to be a clear and concise offer at launch. Not really good enough and a politician type answer. My purchasing decision 'will not yet be taken' until we get clarification. I don't want to get stung again, as I said before.

The APT is clear. Why not this one? Just say one way or the other. To mind this means there will be reruns but they don't want to say too loudly in case it slows or devalues the initial demand. So why not just say this is not limited on the website instead of being vague?

Back again...

 

As for the accusation of circularity: If I have failed to argue not only that speculation 'isn't liked', but that there is extremely good, and not at all circular reason why it's *more than disliked*, then that is my failing as an advocate within the limited space available. (I question whether I failed altogether - the post did get some measure of support.)

 

Sorry about the dog.

 

Edit: * I have toned down a phrase because it was a bit immoderate. The new wording is between asterisks.

Edited by SamTom
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest spet0114

 


 

This loco will have one of the biggest wheels in 00 gauge rtr modelling and i'd like to see what it can do... followed by Hardwicke in 2016, 990 Henry Oakley in 2017, Columbine in 2018, MR Spinner in 2019, Thundersley in 2020, NSR Tank in 2021.....

 

 

Great list, but you've forgotten SECR 737, NER 1621 and Gladstone, all of which are crying out for an 'NCIM' model.... :)

 

Also, it's worth noting that the Bachmann 'Emily' has/will have larger wheels still - 8ft 5in, if I remember correctly from Mike Trice's excellent conversion thread....

Edited by spet0114
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tender Drive is what I have always known them as, the tender provides the means of propulsion rather than the loco. For as long as I have been modelling (mostly in UK outline N) it has always been that and never a "powered tender" harking right back to the legendary Peco "Jubilee"

 

Roy

Edited by Roy L S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest spet0114

Tender Drive is what I have always known them as, the tender provides the means of propulsion rather than the loco. For as long as I have been modelling (mostly in UK outline N) it has always been that and never a "powered tender" harking right back to the legendary Peco "Jubilee"

 

Roy

 

Or in OO gauge, the Grafar Black 5?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Personally speaking, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone using their skill to get themselves ahead in life, and if that means taking a risk on a gamble then that's their choice. (Gamble = speculation) = (risk vs reward). Anyone who's bought a house, set up a business falls into this category and there have been many winners and losers here.

 

However I don't recommend to mix business with pleasure.

 

railways are fine art but not finite.

They are all transport and just like real life automobiles.. their value declines over time.

 

However the real issue for me....is not it's value next week or next year... but if it's tender drive or not... if it's tender drive then I suspect I will be out.

 

I have several Roco locos which are tender drive and I do consider them backwards.. literally and evolutionary...

someone already mentioned lack of slipping, but also realism... a tender drive roco will go up mountains even a landrover will be fearful of, due to the dreaded traction tyres, the shaft from the tender comes out of the coal doors and straight into the firebox door.... it's only made invisible because of the enclosed nature of many german cab designs.

The dreaded cardan shaft tender drive locos can be a bit finicky on curves and make a bit of a mess when they derail and start shedding parts that need a degree in patience to reassemble.

 

Imagine in that smaller tender version of No1.. a big black rectangular shaft coming from the coal stack and passing either side of a stunned driver and fireman standing in an open cabbed loco for it to disappear through the firebox door... thanks but no thanks.

 

I'd rather have a steam loco where the power comes from the boiler, than the tender... tender drive for £200.. nah, but if it's a single wheel sat on a metal body with a motor underneath it.. nice.

This loco will have one of the biggest wheels in 00 gauge rtr modelling and i'd like to see what it can do... followed by Hardwicke in 2016, 990 Henry Oakley in 2017, Columbine in 2018, MR Spinner in 2019, Thundersley in 2020, NSR Tank in 2021.....

Why is the cardan shaft described as "dreaded" ? I would be grateful if you would give us your thoughts on the matter. I do not share your conclusions. The performance of the examples I have lead me in the opposite direction. I consider it to be a method of haulage and propulsion well worth developing.The Stirling Single should be powered and provide haulage capacity by the most efficient and cost effective method currently available and not be subjected to any pre conceived notions of what might or might not be appropriate.I am sure that Jason and Locomotion Models are aware of that.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tender Drive is what I have always known them as, the tender provides the means of propulsion rather than the loco. For as long as I have been modelling (mostly in UK outline N) it has always been that and never a "powered tender" harking right back to the legendary Peco "Jubilee"

 

Roy

Roy - you are right, I was trying to differentiate between a motor in the tender driving the tender wheels and a motor in the tender driving a shaft into a g/b to power the loco wheels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roy - you are right, I was trying to differentiate between a motor in the tender driving the tender wheels and a motor in the tender driving a shaft into a g/b to power the loco wheels.

The Roco version does both.

What should we call that arrangement?

Bernard

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Personally I see the whole issue about is it limited, will it ever be made again as of no interest to my own purchasing decision except that if money is tight and I decide to take a chance it'll be made again. I won't deny that I'm a bit of a collector but most of the models I've collected are worth less than I paid for them in absolute terms never mind real terms or compared with what I'd have if I'd stuck the money in a bank and I do not feel at all bad about the models I've bought. An example is the FIA LMS 10000, an exquisite model, a very limited model and an expensive one yet if you are lucky you can pick them up for a lot less than the retail price of 8 years ago. That is not to say I do not like it when I have something that does appreciate but it is the exception rather than the norm. I don't begrudge investors making money, but part of societies acceptance of investors making a profit is that they take a risk in making investments and that those investments go up as well as down.

 

This is a wonderful choice of model by NRM and Rapido and I thank them and commend them for it. I cannot wait to see the model.

Edited by jjb1970
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re haulage. What would this load equate to in straightforward modern money, 3 Mk1 corridors? plus a bit of extra rolling resistance

 

Anyone got any figures of the Tractive Effort of a Stirling Single (yes I know TE is a crude measure...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

That's probably something like 120 tons. I make tractive effort between 11,000 to 15,000 lbf depending which series of production you take. I'm not 100% clear on the details of the preserved loco.

 

According to Classic British steam locomotives by Peter Herring (via Wikipedia), they were able to haul 275 tons at 50 mph, which might amount to a dozen coaches in it's original operating era.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re haulage. What would this load equate to in straightforward modern money, 3 Mk1 corridors? plus a bit of extra rolling resistance

 

Anyone got any figures of the Tractive Effort of a Stirling Single (yes I know TE is a crude measure...)

 

They regularly handled 200 tons in all weathers, but had problems with 250 ton top link expresses in bad weather. 200 tons would be about 14 six wheelers or seven or eight Mk1s.

 

Tractive effort varied between 10,335 lb for No1 and 15,779 lb for the 1003 class

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re G-BOAF's video, above, for which thanks...

 

I should have realised that the sound of the engine would have been as outstanding as the engineering of that wheel. Now I've got to wonder if I can afford to update my reservation to include dcc sound... and then update my layout control... then dcc my other stock... The sounds are as pretty as a big one cylinder bike, or steam narrowboat; how much can I risk beggaring myself? Sleepless nights ahead!

 

I won't think about the smoke. I won't!

 

My only reservation about the video: how much more magic if the Single had been hauling Victorian stock? Back to beating a drum which I mean to continue on: carriages to match engines!

 

All those beautiful pregrouping engines in glorious liveries that we've seen; but there is for sale (rtr and/or at a price most of us can even dream of affording) notone realistic rake of pregrouping passenger stock. And I haven't the skills to make them.

 

Maybe the mistake is to use the word 'pregrouping': is it perhaps a slightly vague, dismissive, almost demeaning word?

 

Who's for some rtr Edwardian or even Victorian stock? Or are some of us condemned just to reminisce with pretty but, in the context of our layouts, depurposed engines?

 

G-BOAF; now I'm wondering what sort of aircraft... I wonder if I can find it on search...

Edited by SamTom
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re G-BOAF's video, above, for which thanks...

 

I should have realised that the sound of the engine would have been as outstanding as the engineering of that wheel. Now I've got to wonder if I can afford to update my reservation to include dcc sound... and then update my layout control... then dcc my other stock... The sounds are as pretty as a big one cylinder bike, or steam narrowboat; how much can I risk beggaring myself? Sleepless nights ahead!

 

I won't think about the smoke. I won't!

 

My only reservation about the video: how much more magic if the Single had been hauling Victorian stock? Back to beating a drum which I mean to continue on: carriages to match engines!

 

All those beautiful pregrouping engines in glorious liveries that we've seen; but there is for sale (rtr and/or at a price most of us can even dream of affording) notone realistic rake of pregrouping passenger stock. And I haven't the skills to make them.

 

Maybe the mistake is to use the word 'pregrouping': is it perhaps a slightly vague, dismissive, almost demeaning word?

 

Who's for some rtr Edwardian or even Victorian stock? Or are some of us condemned just to reminisce with pretty but, in the context of our layouts, depurposed engines?

 

G-BOAF; now I'm wondering what sort of aircraft... I wonder if I can find it on search...

Thanks, not my video in any way shape or form (found it on youtube).

 

Arguably if No1 was restored now, would it have any more appropriate stock (4/6 wheelers) than were available in the 1980s? If she were a Southern Engine, then yes, but  garden sheds etc have not bequeathed us as many GNR vehicles of that vintage...

 

G-BOAF/Concorde 216...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

All those beautiful pregrouping engines in glorious liveries that we've seen; but there is for sale (rtr and/or at a price most of us can even dream of affording) notone realistic rake of pregrouping passenger stock. And I haven't the skills to make them.

 

 

The problem is purely mathematical. The further back one goes, the more railway companies there are and the greater the risk that, if a manufacturer does pick on a particular coach type, a big chunk of the potential market will decide it's not the one they want. The modern answer might be crowd funding (with deposits to ensure the rug is not pulled after the project has passed the point of no return), probably through whoever makes the loco.

 

Otherwise, viable quantities might be assured by selling the loco in a train pack with two or three coaches and offering an expansion pack of extra coaches, in the way Hornby do with some of their 'specials'. The problem with the Stirling Single is that many (most?) of those who will buy them just like 'lollipop' locos, don't model the GNR and, if they want coaches at all, only want one or two to go in the display case alongside the engine. To be blunt, many of these models will never turn a wheel again after the novelty wears off.

 

Dave Jones has intimated that the cost of launching a small range of coaches is not substantially less than for a loco but the payback can be expected to take longer. Additionally, everyone has a different idea of what is affordable/acceptable price-wise. 

 

The GNR 6-wheelers needed to go with the Stirling are quite short and it's going to look a bit daft pulling less than five. Even if the manufacturer was confident enough to order quantities sufficient to allow them to be sold around the (much-criticised) price level of Bachmann's forthcoming BR(W) auto-trailer (which will look right on its own) that's significant money.

 

Extrapolating that to the Train Pack scenario suggested above, we'd be looking at the Train Pack  (Loco, Third, Compo, Brake third) in the region of £400 (without sound) and the expansion pack (same three coaches with different numbers) at around half that.

 

The killer is that, if you sell the loco on its own, you might not sell enough of the coaches to cover your costs. I think I am beginning to understand why the r-t-r producers generally avoid making Victorian/Edwardian/pre-group coaches! 

 

John     

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

John Spellar's website featuring the Leicester branch of the GNR has an interesting picture of a single at Leicester on a scheduled train in 1900 which makes me wonder if the class might have made it across to Stafford.

http://spellerweb.net/rhindex/UKRH/GreatNorthern/GNLeics.html

 

Sadly they were all out of regular service by 1916 so I can't justify one even on running rights for my planned LMS 1934-9 era layout but I'm sure it's going to be a very nice model.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

In this country, it appears to be "as little as possible"......

Id say "value for money"

 

This one is too rich for me, but believe it or not I do actually see how you could get to this price. Fairly limited use. Everyone seems to want one but very few can actually use it on a layout. Therefore this is going to appeal to collectors mainly. The drive train will be complicated whether it is an 4-2-2 , 0-6-2 or 4-4-0 and these fine bogey frames (is that the correct term for the splashers over the bogey ). This is going to be a really tricky model to get right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately I can run one set in 30th June 1938.  When it ran with and along side  Sir Nigel Gresley LNER 4498 for the 50th anniversary of the Flying Scotsman.  Though I don't have 4498, I have 5 LNER A4's, soon to be six, 3 Silver and 3 Blue.  Not to mention the other 25 + LNER locos.

So if you model LNER , then it is plausible to run one. 

 

Will be ordering mine tomorrow.  CC cycle ends.

Mark in OZ

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have preferred one with a dome. :P

 

I'm undecided about getting one as yet. Not really my region, which is the reason I didn't go for the Ivatt as I'll be getting a Brighton version instead, but if I did buy one it'll be the one with the "wrong" tender as that's the way I remember it. But put me down for a Spinner if that ever gets added to the collection. :D

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if there's any precedent for this, but could the locomotive be both tender drive and engine drive? Whether they are linked by a cardan shaft, or even two separate motors? 

 

In basic engineering terms, the more driving wheels there are the greater the tractive effort, right? So this way you can have several driving wheels in the tender, and then maybe just the large driving wheels in the loco as well (or perhaps more). Going round corners isn't a problem because the whole driving system is articulated.

 

Like I said, I don't know if this sort have thing has been done before? Just a bit of out loud thinking!

Edited by iamjamie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...