Have your say with Rapido

[NHY 581]

Oh.....and GER E4 and F5 or F6 please. 

 

Asking for a friend........

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, NHY 581 said:

Roll on Maidstone I say !!

Let's see, for you that's M4, M25, M26, M20. Bon courage with that lot, mon brave!

[Wickham Green too]

Never mind all that 'M' stuff  -  a 246 bus and class 377 should get me to Maidstone ! ( ASLEF permitting ) 

[PhilJ W]

3 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Let's see, for you that's M4, M25, M26, M20. Bon courage with that lot, mon brave!

I'm planning to visit the Chatham show on the 20th or 21st of July. That is the first weekend of the school summer break. I won't be driving there from Essex as it involves the Dartford crossing which will be chocker. Fortunately someone is thinking of hiring a coach if they get enough bums on seats. 

[Combe Martin]

On 03/05/2024 at 12:11, Harlequin said:

 

Asking for a feature set that suits you in particular is not going to encourage a manufacturer to produce a model.

 

A better approach is to think like a manufacturer and work out the minimal tooling that would be attractive to the widest audience, bearing in mind contemporary expectations of levels of detail.

 

 

I cant see that what I've suggested is a 'feature set' that suits me, in fact what I've suggested is something  that aligns with your second sentance.

 

I suggested the following (which is to keep costs down) ...

 

Produce one common chassis either ex-GWR or ex-LMS (by far the biggest two chassis types) and therefore with the greatest spread.  For example, the GWR chassis is the same whether it has an Express Dairy tanker top or United Dairies/Unigate top, and the same for the LMS chassis.

 

Produce two tanker tops, one Express Dairies and the other Unigate.  I personally wouldn't buy an Express Dairy tanker because they wern't seen at Bailey Gate but I'm sure anyone building an Express Dairy ... dairy ...  probably wouldnt buy a Unigate tanker.  Anyone modelling a main line where tanker 'collection' trains ran would I imagine buy both.  I think I'm right in saying that some of the 'collection' trains collected both dairies tankers.

 

To add some variation to a multi dairy tanker train, and only because the Express Dairy tankers (from what I can see) all had a central top filler with central side ladder, produce the Unigate tanker with a ladder/side platform/frame and top filler at one end. 

 

Now I come to what some may consider to be the most contentious suggestion, ie leave off the detail that cant be seen unless the model is turned upside down or eye scanned at track level.  Rapidoandy has pointed out that with all the details and associated complex production and assembly costs, that the selling price would have to be too high which would hamper the sales figures.  So he therefore dosnt want to make one.  So my suggestion was if that's the case, why not leave off what you cant see, and keep the price lower to a level where it would sell.

 

This is not me trying to steer things my way, its a suggestion of how maybe a model can be produced.

It seems to me that maybe the choice is either ...

 

design a 'full fat' model which is too expensive to make therefore they don't make it and we don't get one, or

 

leave off what you cant see to make it cheaper and we do get one.

 

At the prices rapidoandy was suggesting I would buy them either way so it makes no difference to me, but I can see that others may not.  So, this is not me trying to steer things my way, but a way of actually getting one.

 

One other point not made before ...  by the late 50's/early 60's the various dairies had been merged into the 'big 2',  ie Unigate and Express Dairies which had their own liveries.  But the smaller dairies that merged into them each had their own livery, so there is scope (if producing for example a Unigate tanker that was previously part of a smaller dairies fleet) to additionally produce the same model but with a 'back dated' livery'.

 

As I said at the begining, there is nothing in this that is steering it my way.

[alexl102]

I do believe that some modellers vastly overestimate the demand for absolutely perfect detail down to the last rivet. 

I know for a fact that Rapido’s wagons with their super detailed underframes have gone down well with lots of modellers but  for some people it really makes very limited difference. 
 

I’ve pre-ordered a Middleton Colliery 7-plank but only because it represents somewhere I have an affinity with, and I’ve got a gift voucher for a Rapido retailer. If it wasn’t for that, I’d be very happy with my Dapol 5-plank example and wouldn’t have considered spending anything like £30 on a single wagon, no matter how detailed. 
 

To be clear, that’s not me saying Rapido should stop making such detailed wagons, but more backing up Andy’s point that there won’t be a demand for 237 different diagrams of milk tanker with all the tiny differences between them. 

[Jeff Smith]

Don't shoot me but a super detailed under-frame is oxymoronic in OO......

[John Isherwood]

14 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Don't shoot me but a super detailed under-frame is oxymoronic in OO......

 

I think that you just shot yourself - everyone, including you, followed the drift of the post in question.

 

CJI.

Edited May 6 by cctransuk

[Wickham Green too]

A super detailed under-frame is fantastic if the bits which are super detailed are actually visible other than in derailment mode  ....... pretty buffer springs and drawgear can be a right pain in the whatsit for those few of us who wish to fit functioning items - and should never be seen by anyone else !

[John Isherwood]

5 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

A super detailed under-frame is fantastic if the bits which are super detailed are actually visible other than in derailment mode  ....... pretty buffer springs and drawgear can be a right pain in the whatsit for those few of us who wish to fit functioning items - and should never be seen by anyone else !

 

Agreed - Trix started moulding buffer springs, drawgear, etc. in the 1960s - I've never understood why!

 

CJI.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, alexl102 said:

’ve pre-ordered a Middleton Colliery 7-plank but only because it represents somewhere I have an affinity with, and I’ve got a gift voucher for a Rapido retailer. If it wasn’t for that, I’d be very happy with my Dapol 5-plank example and wouldn’t have considered spending anything like £30 on a single wagon, no matter how detailed. 

This goes to what I consider to be the heart of the matter.  In your case you want a Middleton Colliery liveried wagon because of your affinity with the place, fair enough, but don’t you want a good one? Dapol’s 7-plank minerals are hopeless models (as are Hornby’s).  Both use incorrect generic scale 10’ wheelbase chassis instead of the correct 9’, and stretch the body side panels and doors proportionally to suit, so there is nothing that you can do to work them up into better models.  If you put scale chassis under them, the bodies overhang the buffer beams by 2mm at each end, and attempts cut the side panels to correct size are thwarted by the diagonal strapping, while the skewed proportions of the doors mean that the doorframe will be in the wrong place.  
 

Then, when you come to the chassis, you find 1980s tooling to the standard you’d expect; moulded handbrake levers and overscale detail.  I’ll refrain from commenting on the moulded brakes, which are closer to the correct position than separate items on more detailed and recent models because of the 00 gauge anomaly, but I prefer my brake blocks to align with the wheels rather than visibly clawing at fresh air.  In short, these wagons and 16ton all-steel minerals from the same makers are inferior in scale and detail to 21st century equivalents from Bachmann, Oxford, or Accurascale, and, in the case of the 16tonners, to plastic kit models available from Airfix, later Dapol and now Dapol Kitmaster, that have been around since 1962 when a 10-year-old Johnster had no trouble successfully building them.  
 

So, given that 21st century 7-plankers and 16tonners, and pretty much everything else, are intrinsically better scaled and detailed even before you look underneath, and Oxford’s are pretty competitively priced, I can’t understand why anyone would object to these better models on the grounds that they can’t see much of the detail underneath the wagon.  It isn’t going to be any cheaper if the detail is left off, and brake rodding is pretty visible without turning the wagon over anyway.  Buffer/drawbar spring detail and underfloor planking do not adversely affect the running.  
 

I am no rivet-counter, as anyone who has seen my modelling will testify, but I try my best to get things right.  If I want a model of a prototype badly enough and the only one available is an old tooling that doesn’t meet current standards, I’ll buy it and use it until something better comes along.  But I draw the line at serious scale distortions to accommodate incorrect generic chassis, as well as locos from the 60s without brakes and flangeless centre drivers.  We’ve moved on, and I’ve moved on, and while I have no problem with ‘retro’ layouts that use older stock for it’s own sake, they’re not for me.  There are limits to how far I can suspend disbelief, and until the early years of this century there were a good number of RTR models that exceeded them, and even now some ancient dogs lingering in catalogues.  

[Combe Martin]

13 hours ago, The Johnster said:

So, given that 21st century 7-plankers and 16tonners, and pretty much everything else, are intrinsically better scaled and detailed even before you look underneath, and Oxford’s are pretty competitively priced, I can’t understand why anyone would object to these better models on the grounds that they can’t see much of the detail underneath the wagon.  It isn’t going to be any cheaper if the detail is left off, and brake rodding is pretty visible without turning the wagon over anyway.  Buffer/drawbar spring detail and underfloor planking do not adversely affect the running.  
 

 

 I think you'r missing the point.  Rapidoandy has said that the biggest part of the production costs is the assembly, and that a full fat (my description not his) model would be sold at £40 - £45 and at that price not enough would be sold, so he wouldn't make one.  However, a model that is sold at £32 would sell enough, so he would make one.

 

So, given that the assembly is the biggest part of the production cost, I've been suggesting that to lower it , that underframe details that cant be seen unless the model is turned upside down or eyesight scanned right down at rail level be left off.  Given that this part of the assembly can be quite intricate and is all done by hand and is therefore time consuming it follows that reducing the assembly time must lower the production cost.

 

If this is enough to sell the model at approx. £32 and so he makes them, and we get one, rather than not get one, then that makes sense to me.  I'm not talking about going back to the bad old days of chassis detail, just leave off what you cant see !   And, if you don't like them like that then you don't have to buy one, because your not going to get one the full fat way !

[alexl102]

18 hours ago, The Johnster said:

This goes to what I consider to be the heart of the matter.  In your case you want a Middleton Colliery liveried wagon because of your affinity with the place, fair enough, but don’t you want a good one? Dapol’s 7-plank minerals are hopeless models (as are Hornby’s).  Both use incorrect generic scale 10’ wheelbase chassis instead of the correct 9’, and stretch the body side panels and doors proportionally to suit, so there is nothing that you can do to work them up into better models.  If you put scale chassis under them, the bodies overhang the buffer beams by 2mm at each end, and attempts cut the side panels to correct size are thwarted by the diagonal strapping, while the skewed proportions of the doors mean that the doorframe will be in the wrong place.  
 

Then, when you come to the chassis, you find 1980s tooling to the standard you’d expect; moulded handbrake levers and overscale detail.  I’ll refrain from commenting on the moulded brakes, which are closer to the correct position than separate items on more detailed and recent models because of the 00 gauge anomaly, but I prefer my brake blocks to align with the wheels rather than visibly clawing at fresh air.  In short, these wagons and 16ton all-steel minerals from the same makers are inferior in scale and detail to 21st century equivalents from Bachmann, Oxford, or Accurascale, and, in the case of the 16tonners, to plastic kit models available from Airfix, later Dapol and now Dapol Kitmaster, that have been around since 1962 when a 10-year-old Johnster had no trouble successfully building them.  
 

So, given that 21st century 7-plankers and 16tonners, and pretty much everything else, are intrinsically better scaled and detailed even before you look underneath, and Oxford’s are pretty competitively priced, I can’t understand why anyone would object to these better models on the grounds that they can’t see much of the detail underneath the wagon.  It isn’t going to be any cheaper if the detail is left off, and brake rodding is pretty visible without turning the wagon over anyway.  Buffer/drawbar spring detail and underfloor planking do not adversely affect the running.  
 

I am no rivet-counter, as anyone who has seen my modelling will testify, but I try my best to get things right.  If I want a model of a prototype badly enough and the only one available is an old tooling that doesn’t meet current standards, I’ll buy it and use it until something better comes along.  But I draw the line at serious scale distortions to accommodate incorrect generic chassis, as well as locos from the 60s without brakes and flangeless centre drivers.  We’ve moved on, and I’ve moved on, and while I have no problem with ‘retro’ layouts that use older stock for it’s own sake, they’re not for me.  There are limits to how far I can suspend disbelief, and until the early years of this century there were a good number of RTR models that exceeded them, and even now some ancient dogs lingering in catalogues.  

I won't even attempt to argue your analysis of the prototypes because I openly admit to having minimal knowledge in that respect. But the thing for me is  - does it look right in a mixed rake of PO wagons? For me, the answer with the Dapol examples is: yes. Not perfect, but for the price point I absolutely won't argue.

[Wickham Green too]

Some people are happy with having minimal knowledge while others beg to differ .................. takes all sorts !

[rapidoandy]

I really really really must stop reading this on holiday….

 

A couple of comments.

 

If you think leaving off a couple of bits of detail will save in the region of £10 per unit then, respectively, your in cloud cuckoo land. 
 

You then assume many of the bits that you can’t apparently to see are separate - take a look at any of our wagons and you will see that the underfloor ribs / planks / springs are not separate but actually just part of the floor moulding and require no assembly - and we purposefully don’t decorate them with more than one colour (sometimes steel and wood should be two colours).

 

What you can see are different axleboxes, springs, buffers, vac and non vac, open brake ratchets and a host of other details - all of which with the exception of maybe the brake cylinder can be seen from any normal angle. We do them properly because you CAN see them.

 

This leads me to comment - we do wagons properly and have made ourselves a reputation for that why would we go backwards and make one that’s ’sort of proper’? Your future sales are always off the back of your last product - so if we make a ‘less good’ tank and people buy it and don’t like it - then that hurts my future sales.

 

On the argument of ‘people don’t need all the detail’ then let me please point you towards the 6w milk tank that’s currently available in RTR. Surely that’s good enough? Or do you want something a bit better than that but not as good as our usual stuff? 
 

Turning to the milk tankers specifically. As I understand it from talking to people in the know - there are no ‘identical chassis’ with the same rivet patterns and other visible details. They are close, but not identical - so we could t make multiple versions without doing a ‘close enough’ wagon. Similarly as

these are not anchor mount types they will be fiddly to make. Think of all the strapping, ladders, hatches and tank support braces. All of these would need to be separate parts which means lots of tooling and a higher assembly costs. 
 

Don’t get me wrong - I’d LOVE to do one. But the economics need to be looked at carefully PLUS I’m now very aware

that a package has been given to another manufacturer.

 

As I sit here writing this in the middle of Disney World I have another thought:

 

Im constantly aware of pricing. I’m the head of a business but also a modeller and I see both sides very clearly. However it comes down to value and, importantly, do people like what we produce. I’m sat on a bench whilst the baby is asleep and have been watching THOUSANDs of people walk by enjoying themselves. This place is expensive - but you know what you’re getting and it’s very obvious that people are happy to pay it. I suspect some people

have saved for years whilst for others it’s more in reach financially. 
 

I want Rapido to be the same. I want people to know what they are getting with us - a product that brings fun, enjoyment, benefits to mental health and a feeling of value.

Yes we may be expensive compared to some, but that’s ok if it brings the benefits above. We work within a set of lines and I’m comfortable with the limits Rapido has set itself. 
 

Now I’m going back to my people watching - and maybe a train ride shortly…

 

Happy modelling. 
 

Andy

[The Johnster]

Yes, I agree with Combe Martin's point, but was commenting mostly on Alexl's statement that a Dapol Middleton Colliery would be fine for his purposes because of his affinity with that colliery.  His choice of course, but it seemed only right to me that it should be an informed choice, and that he is aware of the shortcomings of this model and it's Hornby equivalents.

[MattR]

7 minutes ago, rapidoandy said:

and maybe a train ride shortly…

 

The Wildlife Express Train's locomotive at Animal Kingdom is based on a L&YR Class 5!

[Wickham Green too]

2 hours ago, rapidoandy said:

... the underfloor ribs / planks / springs are not separate but actually just part of the floor moulding ... we do wagons properly ...

With all due respect, I was under the impression that getting closer to real operation might be considered doing wagons properly - but when you mould 'invisible' drawgear and buffer springs as part of the chassis - and often buffers themselves - it makes the fitting of proper sprung buffers and drawgear somewhat troublesome ......... at least the tensionlocks can be removed for disposal quite easily. ( Other points of view are available.)

 

Have a great holiday !

[No Decorum]

13 hours ago, rapidoandy said:

I really really really must stop reading this on holiday….

 

A couple of comments.

 

If you think leaving off a couple of bits of detail will save in the region of £10 per unit then, respectively, your in cloud cuckoo land. 
 

You then assume many of the bits that you can’t apparently to see are separate - take a look at any of our wagons and you will see that the underfloor ribs / planks / springs are not separate but actually just part of the floor moulding and require no assembly - and we purposefully don’t decorate them with more than one colour (sometimes steel and wood should be two colours).

 

What you can see are different axleboxes, springs, buffers, vac and non vac, open brake ratchets and a host of other details - all of which with the exception of maybe the brake cylinder can be seen from any normal angle. We do them properly because you CAN see them.

 

This leads me to comment - we do wagons properly and have made ourselves a reputation for that why would we go backwards and make one that’s ’sort of proper’? Your future sales are always off the back of your last product - so if we make a ‘less good’ tank and people buy it and don’t like it - then that hurts my future sales.

 

On the argument of ‘people don’t need all the detail’ then let me please point you towards the 6w milk tank that’s currently available in RTR. Surely that’s good enough? Or do you want something a bit better than that but not as good as our usual stuff? 
 

Turning to the milk tankers specifically. As I understand it from talking to people in the know - there are no ‘identical chassis’ with the same rivet patterns and other visible details. They are close, but not identical - so we could t make multiple versions without doing a ‘close enough’ wagon. Similarly as

these are not anchor mount types they will be fiddly to make. Think of all the strapping, ladders, hatches and tank support braces. All of these would need to be separate parts which means lots of tooling and a higher assembly costs. 
 

Don’t get me wrong - I’d LOVE to do one. But the economics need to be looked at carefully PLUS I’m now very aware

that a package has been given to another manufacturer.

 

As I sit here writing this in the middle of Disney World I have another thought:

 

Im constantly aware of pricing. I’m the head of a business but also a modeller and I see both sides very clearly. However it comes down to value and, importantly, do people like what we produce. I’m sat on a bench whilst the baby is asleep and have been watching THOUSANDs of people walk by enjoying themselves. This place is expensive - but you know what you’re getting and it’s very obvious that people are happy to pay it. I suspect some people

have saved for years whilst for others it’s more in reach financially. 
 

I want Rapido to be the same. I want people to know what they are getting with us - a product that brings fun, enjoyment, benefits to mental health and a feeling of value.

Yes we may be expensive compared to some, but that’s ok if it brings the benefits above. We work within a set of lines and I’m comfortable with the limits Rapido has set itself. 
 

Now I’m going back to my people watching - and maybe a train ride shortly…

 

Happy modelling. 
 

Andy

Thinking about model railways seems to me a good use of time when in Dismal World. 🤣 I have posted over the years about the desirability of producing older wagons, suggesting that an accurate model of an RCH wagon of some description would be a steady seller. Lo and behold, Rapido has delivered not only them but other pre-grouping types. Looking in particular at the internal details of the WoR NCB wagons, I’m impressed. When Bachmann has been accused of abandoning steam (all sorts of things may be going on behind closed doors), Rapido is producing one new type after another. I’ve begun to notice how much of my spend is going Rapido’s way and I still can’t quite keep up.

 

Have another think about pick ups please, Andy.

[PhilJ W]

@rapidoandy, you mentioned that one of the biggest costs is assembly. Has self assembly by the purchaser been considered? or is that not viable.

[Dunsignalling]

On 05/05/2024 at 19:18, Jeff Smith said:

Don't shoot me but a super detailed under-frame is oxymoronic in OO......

Not so, it can have all the right bits, without them all being in the right places*. (OO and EM vs. P4, or moulded in relief vs. everything being separate parts).

 

(*Acknowledgement to Morcambe and Wise).

 

The terms "super-detailed" and "wholly accurate" are not precisely synonymous.

 

John

Edited May 7 by Dunsignalling

[Phil Parker]

12 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

@rapidoandy, you mentioned that one of the biggest costs is assembly. Has self assembly by the purchaser been considered? or is that not viable.

 

ViTrains provided handrails and a few other parts separate, just needing cutting from a fret and pushing into pre-made holes. Modellers screamed this was too difficult, and I got paid for writing an article showing how to fit them.

 

A bigger problem would be packing all those bits so they arrive safely. You can't just lob them in a plastic bag. A couple of years ago, I built Accucraft's Peckett kit for Garden Rail. The effort required to pack all the bits showed why the price difference between this and the RTR version was minimal!

[Steamport Southport]

14 hours ago, MattR said:

 

The Wildlife Express Train's locomotive at Animal Kingdom is based on a L&YR Class 5!

 

Three of them!

 

Although they are three foot gauge diesels. The closest the real ones would have came to African wildlife would have been Blackpool or Southport Zoos!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_Express_Train

 

 

Jason

[RapidoCorbs]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

@rapidoandy, you mentioned that one of the biggest costs is assembly. Has self assembly by the purchaser been considered? or is that not viable.

Bear in mind that the factories are under no obligation to take on work that we propose to them, and they are understandably reluctant to make products that don't give their teams work. So if you cut out the assembly phase, there is no work for those people.

This came up when discussing complete-knock-down (CKD) stock. 

[The Johnster]

And of course the CKD concept was never about reducing production costs, which it probably didn’t much anyway in the 1960s when there were fewer components to assemble anyway, it was a way of avoiding purchase tax, the precursor to VAT, and selling models to people who otherwise might not have bought them.  Kits were exempt from purchase tax, RTR wasn’t.