Rapido/Locomotion Models GNR Stirling Single

[John Isherwood]

I'm sorry but the constructive comments have also been interspersed with negativity and moaning. And as for calling the Chris's post dismissive, have you read the post Chris was referring to? Nothing positive or constructive there!

Alex

 

I have, as suggested, reread the post in question.

 

I see no negativity - simply an honest statement of the author's position on the matter, and a realistic appraisal of the likely effects if this model is released in the form depicted in the EP.

 

I am certainly revising my opinion of the standards adhered to by both Rapido and the NRM.

 

In the latter case, we have a public body that refuses to restore major items in its care, because their authenticity cannot be compromised by replacing life-expired components. At the same time, it commissions a representation of an iconic artifact and, presumably, authorises 'compromises' which very materially affect its fidelity to the prototype.

 

Still - Joe Public will buy it in ignorance, and thereby contribute to the NRM's coffers.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Guest Midland Mole]

Wow, I genuinely cannot believe what I am reading....

 

 

I'm out, bye RMweb

 

Edit: I cant let the negative people get to me so much, and I just need a break from this nonsense. Bring on the Single Rapido, I am more than ready!

Edited July 31, 2017 by Midland Mole

[Andy Y]

 At the same time, it commissions a representation of an iconic artifact and, presumably, authorises 'compromises' which very materially affect its fidelity to the prototype.

 

Still - Joe Public will buy it in ignorance, and thereby contribute to the NRM's coffers.

 

 

It appears, to me, that some are losing the ability to have reasonable expectations. I feel pained to state the bleedin' obvious that it's a OO model for starters but if we're going to make daft statements then it becomes necessary to address them with an injection of reality.

 

And by the way; yes, the most important outcome is that the model does produce a return for the museum.

 

You have a choice whether you buy it or not and I'm getting somewhat jaded by the destructive nature of some of the armchair critics here. They may think their input is of high value, should be followed at any costs to the commissioning party or manufacturer and that their perspective should become gospel. Maybe one day they will realise it isn't that way, accept it and be happier in their lives or are they happiest when being miserable? From several conversations I have had over the years, it's also evident that it's counter-productive as although many manufacturers read these pages and do investigate where any issues may be they also reach a point where they feel they cannot win and just do it their way without trying to please everyone.

 

Sadly I have to reiterate that, as a site, we are not banning criticism but I am getting increasingly fed up with those whose most prominent modelling credential is their ability to snipe.

 

And if anyone starts uttering trite statements like 'criticism is censored here' etc then I have to say you are part of the problem rather than the solution.

[chris p bacon]

There is a third camp of those who want it to run on a pre-grouping layout but also want it to look right - or at least better than it seems to at the moment.

 

I am prepared to reserve final judgement until we see decorated samples, but as it stands this must be on the verge of being not as described.  This will be a shame if it ends up like that since it will damage the reputations of Rapido as a to be trusted manufacturer and NRM as a to be trusted commissioner.

 

I doubt that there is any opportunity to change the moulds in any significant way and we can only hope that full decoration hides the compromises.

 

You are correct with the 3rd camp, it just seemed a bit too obvious to include them as I would have thought that those who are modelling pre-grouping had already thought about how such a locomotive could be made. Until Rapido/NRM chose to produce No1 I doubt it was high on the list for other manufacturers. For me it has proved too difficult to build.

 

I also doubt it will tarnish Rapido & the NRM if there has to be some compromise, quite possibly the opposite if it proves to run universally.

[Paperlad]

Well I think it looks great, I'm happy to have ordered one and I'm very much looking forward to taking delivery.

[Freightliner Class 66]

very nice, wrong era for me but very nice

[John Isherwood]

It appears, to me, that some are losing the ability to have reasonable expectations. I feel pained to state the bleedin' obvious that it's a OO model for starters but if we're going to make daft statements then it becomes necessary to address them with an injection of reality.

 

And by the way; yes, the most important outcome is that the model does produce a return for the museum.

 

You have a choice whether you buy it or not and I'm getting somewhat jaded by the destructive nature of some of the armchair critics here. They may think their input is of high value, should be followed at any costs to the commissioning party or manufacturer and that their perspective should become gospel. Maybe one day they will realise it isn't that way, accept it and be happier in their lives or are they happiest when being miserable? From several conversations I have had over the years, it's also evident that it's counter-productive as although many manufacturers read these pages and do investigate where any issues may be they also reach a point where they feel they cannot win and just do it their way without trying to please everyone.

 

Sadly I have to reiterate that, as a site, we are not banning criticism but I am getting increasingly fed up with those whose most prominent modelling credential is their ability to snipe.

 

And if anyone starts uttering trite statements like 'criticism is censored here' etc then I have to say you are part of the problem rather than the solution.

 

Andy,

 

I am sorry that you were apparently motivated to write your most recent missive as a consequence of my postings, amongst others, on this subject.

 

I was, in common with others it seems, genuinely shocked by the appearance of the second EP of this project. It in no way conveys the image that has been implanted in my mind over a lifetime of seeing images of the prototype.

 

The lowered cylinders have necessitated the flattening of the curved plating between the smokebox and the cylinders, to the point where the loco front end is distinctly reminiscent of the LNWR Cornwall.

 

No.1 is deservedly famous for the artistry of its lines and the sublime simplicity of its visible mechanical components; by lowering the cylinders and revealing the upper slidebars the iconic looks of the loco have been compromised.

 

If these 'adjustments' have been made in order to provide a conventional arrangement of two slidebars below a cast mazak running plate, then I can only repeat that a practical alternative could have been used, as outlined by Miss Prism and myself.

 

Over fifty years I have had more than sufficient experience of working with RTR models to know that such an arrangement could have been adopted in a form that could be mass produced, and used by the customer without difficulty.

 

The alternative arrangements were suggested, not in the expectation that they might be adopted - the project is clearly too advance at this stage - rather, they were made in order to demonstrate that, contrary to the contention of several members, a more authentic depiction of No.1 is not impossible to mass-produce.

 

My own motive in posting was to express my personal disappointment with this forthcoming model, and in the hope that I might in some small way encourage a little blue-sky thinking when manufacturers approach the more esoteric subjects now being tackled. It would be a shame if this welcome widening of the scope of RTR subjects were to be accompanied by a back-sliding in the standards of accuracy of the models produced.

 

If you direct "... those whose most prominent modelling credential is their ability to snipe ..." at me; (it is posted under a quotation taken from me); I take severe exception to the accusation.

 

You know me to be the producer of an extensive range of model railway transfers which are as authentic as I can possibly make them; and examples of my modelling have been posted here in photographic form. My rolling stock output over the years is counted in four figures, and I can claim to have more than a little practical modelling experience.

 

I make no apology for posting constructive suggestions as to how commercial models could be improved; manufacturers are free to ignore them should they so choose. That I am not alone in believing that the standard of model railway products will be improved by informed and constructive comment is evident from the content of this thread.

 

If all you want is comment along the lines of "I note that there are some divergences from the prototype in this forthcoming model - but I am confident that these would not have been made without good reason", then RMweb will loose much of its value, and will resemble the bland reviews in the modelling press which have, over the years, done such a disservice to the cause of improving the standard of RTR products.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

 

[chris p bacon]

If these 'adjustments' have been made in order to provide a conventional arrangement of two slidebars below a cast mazak running plate, then I can only repeat that a practical alternative could have been used, as outlined by Miss Prism and myself.

 

Over fifty years I have had more than sufficient experience of working with RTR models to know that such an arrangement could have been adopted in a form that could be mass produced, and used by the customer without difficulty.

 

 

 

Were you actually being serious about pre-painted 'sticky backed tinfoil' being applied to a cut in the footplate ?

 

I thought you were joking. 

[Andy Y]

I make no apology for posting constructive suggestions as to how commercial models could be improved; manufacturers are free to ignore them should they so choose. 

 

I cannot reconcile that statement or sentiment with the words you actually did use. I am, of course, aware of your credentials but that makes it all the more disappointing to read comments which could be damaging to a business or enterprise - however there are others who could make similar claims despite their 'capability to snipe' being far, far more evident than their capability to produce items.

[PhilH]

As a matter of interest and perhaps record has anything any manufacturer of railway models ever produced been 100% accurate...or even 95%?

 

 

 

No, I thought not.

[jjb1970]

As a matter of interest and perhaps record has anything any manufacturer of railway models ever produced been 100% accurate...or even 95%?

 

 

 

No, I thought not.

 

Absolutely yes, the Hornby Class 91, that is the gold standard in OO model railway, there is just nothing you could improve on it. Closely followed by the almost but not quite as perfect Hornby Class 90 and Class 142 models. Perfection in miniature they are.

 

I have some very high end HO models and HO J models (1/80) and despite being built to astonishingly high standards that are a class above most other models you can still identify compromises.

[Horsetan]

As a matter of interest and perhaps record has anything any manufacturer of railway models ever produced been 100% accurate...or even 95%?

No, I thought not.

Well, I suppose the gauge is wrong for a lot of them.....

[dibber25]

I'm sorry but the constructive comments have also been interspersed with negativity and moaning. And as for calling the Chris's post dismissive, have you read the post Chris was referring to? Nothing positive or constructive there!

Alex

Thank you for that perspective. The comment that I found most alarming was  the suggestion that a manufacturer's reputation and TRUST were somehow at stake because he makes compromises which he deems necessary in order to deliver a product that works within the parameters of a toy train set (those who followed the APT-E saga will recall the Canadian reaction to second radius curves). Then we find, after several pages of prodding at Rapido for a response, that the designer has actually been away on holiday! When Rapido first considered entering the UK market, I advised against it. I knew it would be a steep learning curve and that the combination of trainset curves and a scale/gauge combination which is out of kilter would pose problems that a manufacturer of diesel outline in scales where the gauge is correct had never encountered. GNR No. 1 is Rapido's second British outline model and their first-ever steam loco. They've apparently made a compromise which some folk find unacceptable and for that we're told that they will no longer be trusted! Utterly unbelievable. (CJL)

[John Isherwood]

Thank you for that perspective. The comment that I found most alarming was  the suggestion that a manufacturer's reputation and TRUST were somehow at stake because he makes compromises which he deems necessary in order to deliver a product that works within the parameters of a toy train set (those who followed the APT-E saga will recall the Canadian reaction to second radius curves). Then we find, after several pages of prodding at Rapido for a response, that the designer has actually been away on holiday! When Rapido first considered entering the UK market, I advised against it. I knew it would be a steep learning curve and that the combination of trainset curves and a scale/gauge combination which is out of kilter would pose problems that a manufacturer of diesel outline in scales where the gauge is correct had never encountered. GNR No. 1 is Rapido's second British outline model and their first-ever steam loco. They've apparently made a compromise which some folk find unacceptable and for that we're told that they will no longer be trusted! Utterly unbelievable. (CJL)

 

Choosing Stirling's No.1 as a first attempt at producing a steam locomotive - for the NRM?

 

When asked by a 'newbie' for a suitable subject for a first attempt at kit-building / scratch-building, would you as editor of any model railway magazine have suggested this subject - no!

 

You were wise to advise Rapido not to enter the UK market, especially the steam loco arena, given their total lack of experience; ................ angels fear to tread and all that.

 

We consumers have no control over the business decisions of model commissioners and manufacturers, but we do have the right to comment on the wisdom of those decisions; not least through our wallets.

 

Chris - to what extent have you been personally involved in this project? I know from reading your output over a number of years that you have strong connections with Canada.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[John Isherwood]

Were you actually being serious about pre-painted 'sticky backed tinfoil' being applied to a cut in the footplate ?

 

I thought you were joking. 

 

No - I was dead serious.

 

The 'stick-backed tinfoil' to which you disparagingly refer is used for the computer identification barcode labels of the ink ribbon cartridges which I use for my Alps printers.

 

It is impossible to tear, very flexible, extremely difficult remove from the cartridges and, above all, very thin. It would be simplicity itself to peel cover panels off a backing sheet and apply them to a matching recess in the upper surface of the running plate. This would cover the slot clearance needed for the connecting rod, and be virtually invisible.

 

Anticipating the cry that such an arrangement would increase production costs, I suggested customer application. In reality, factory application would be dead easy compared to some of the intricate work that is now required to detail current RTR models.

 

An accurate-looking RTR model of Stirling's No.1 IS possible, but perhaps not via conventional means.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[John Isherwood]

I cannot reconcile that statement or sentiment with the words you actually did use. I am, of course, aware of your credentials but that makes it all the more disappointing to read comments which could be damaging to a business or enterprise - however there are others who could make similar claims despite their 'capability to snipe' being far, far more evident than their capability to produce items.

 

This is all about protecting businesses / enterprises, isn't it?

 

Please expand upon "I cannot reconcile that statement or sentiment with the words you actually did use" - in a PM if you so choose. I have, throughout, been scrupulous in giving opinions which I truly believe and making statements based upon my own practical experience.

 

I feel, in the light of recent information revealed in this thread, that Rapido have taken on more than they can chew. This is unfortunate, but it serves nobody to try and gloss over basic errors and pass them off as inevitable when modelling the subject prototype.

 

We have recent evidence now of two examples of what can happen when newcomers dive into areas of production in which they are inexperienced. The mainstream players still don't get it right all of the time, but they are under no illusions about the need for extensive research and creative thinking in order to produce accurate models.

 

Label me (and others) as being 'negative' if you will, but compromised products will never enhance a company's reputation, or that of the commissioners.

 

..... and yes - I would actively welcome criticism of my own product output; if it's wrong I want to know about it !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Miss Prism]

The aspects preoccupying this thread for the last 3 pages or so have been entirely concerned with vertical dimensioning, and I feel the transverse distance between the running rails is substantially immaterial to that vertical debate.

 

The transverse implications for going round curves (bogie splasher to slidebar, bogie splasher to cylinder, slidebar and cylinder centres, slidebar width, tyre width, etc) present a different set of horrendous challenges, but I feel is a separate issue.

 

 

[MarkSG]

 

 

An accurate-looking RTR model of Stirling's No.1 IS possible, but perhaps not via conventional means.

 

An accurate-looking RTR model of Stirling's No. 1 would be in S4 gauge and wouldn't cope with 2nd radius curves.

 

Now, I have huge admiration for those who do model with that fidelity to detail, and a well-built and well-running S4 layout is almost always one of the most visually impressive at any show. But the market for RTR S4 is minimal, and OO, by its nature, inevitably involves compromises  - and that's just the gauge, before we even start to care about making the thing go round train set curves.

 

I'm happy to admit that I model in OO, and I accept the compromises that go with it. I don't have the space for a scale-radius roundy-roundy, and I don't have the skill to scratchbuild my own locos and track for even an S4 shunting plank. And nor, I would hazard a guess, do Rapido's and NRM's typical customers. That's precisely why there is a market for an OO GNR No. 1.

 

The Stirling Single is a difficult loco to model in OO. Maybe, Rapido were unwise to choose that as their first steam prototype. It might have been simpler, and less controversial, to start with something that requires fewer compromises to be functional in OO. But, having gone down that route, they have to make it work. A model that looks beautiful, but does not run on a typical OO layout, will not sell. And if it doesn't sell, it won't justify the investment in designing and tooling it.

 

We can argue all we like about whether different compromises might have been a better solution.  But none of us are sitting in fromt of the CAD computer or checking the pre-production samples. Ultimately, the only thing that matters to us is whether or not we want to buy it. If you dont, then don't. But don't criticise those who do, or those who have put the effort in to create something that those who do buy, want to buy.

[rapidobill]

I thought that I asked you all to play nice! 

 

First, there seems to be a general misunderstanding of the purpose of an EP sample. These are NOT representative of finished production models, they are hand-built samples made specifically to test the design and function and to provide a starting point for modifications. As manufacturers we all want to show progress on a project by sharing photos of these samples, but always cringe when we do so!

 

Having now spent a good part of my first day back doing initial testing this EP sample let me make a few general comments.

 

We were given the task to produce a unique model for NRM with three major requirements:

 

1)      It should operate well on layouts owned by the majority of their market. This means #2 radius curves.

 

2)      It should have reasonable pulling power.

 

3)      It should include as much detail as possible, within the constraints imposed by #1 and #2.

 

This sample is really the first fully assembled sample from near production tooling that we could look at and test. (The first sample was really a cobbled job from test parts). Therefore, this EP presents the first real chance to do a comprehensive review. Based on initial tests here is what we’re finding against our goals:

 

1)      The sample has performed very well around Brian Greenwood’s torture track….. err….. layout (sorry Brian!), through tight curves and complicated point work going both forwards and reverse. Objective one accomplished. (FWIW, the APT-E failed at the first try!)

 

2)      The sample pulled a mixed rake of six full sized coaches (seven with a bit of a struggle) around the same layout. This hits our target. Objective two accomplished.

 

3)      Overall the locomotive is pretty much spot on at all major dimensions based on the 3D scan data with just one exception – the cylinders. More on that in a moment. Don’t believe me? Have a look. The blue lines are the CAD drawing of our model, the image behind is a capture of the STL file from the 3D scan of the real loco.

 

 

As you will see from the image, the cylinders are indeed about .75-1 mm too low. This was driven by my desire to have the crosshead guides independent of the frame to make assembly and maintenance of the loco easier. We have already explored many of the approaches mentioned here (well, the sticker idea is new…) but needed to be sure that the model would first perform as intended. If it failed at that it would be nothing more than a shelf queen – with the wrong wheel gauge to boot!

 

Now that we have determined that the basic premise and engineering are successful we can explore other more cosmetic modifications. We will be doing this over the next few weeks with the goal to make the model as accurate as possible while still fulfilling requirements one and two above.

 

Bill Schneider

Rapido Trains

[John Isherwood]

Ultimately, the only thing that matters to us is whether or not we want to buy it. If you dont, then don't. But don't criticise those who do, or those who have put the effort in to create something that those who do buy, want to buy.

 

Whyever not?

 

If the creators can learn something from the experience, they MAY produce models in the future that even more people, including me, want to buy.

 

..... and I think that you will find that I have nowhere criticised those who do (want to buy).

 

Regards,

John isherwood.

[John Isherwood]

I thought that I asked you all to play nice! 

 

First, there seems to be a general misunderstanding of the purpose of an EP sample. These are NOT representative of finished production models, they are hand-built samples made specifically to test the design and function and to provide a starting point for modifications. As manufacturers we all want to show progress on a project by sharing photos of these samples, but always cringe when we do so!

 

Having now spent a good part of my first day back doing initial testing this EP sample let me make a few general comments.

 

We were given the task to produce a unique model for NRM with three major requirements:

 

1)      It should operate well on layouts owned by the majority of their market. This means #2 radius curves.

 

2)      It should have reasonable pulling power.

 

3)      It should include as much detail as possible, within the constraints imposed by #1 and #2.

 

This sample is really the first fully assembled sample from near production tooling that we could look at and test. (The first sample was really a cobbled job from test parts). Therefore, this EP presents the first real chance to do a comprehensive review. Based on initial tests here is what we’re finding against our goals:

 

1)      The sample has performed very well around Brian Greenwood’s torture track….. err….. layout (sorry Brian!), through tight curves and complicated point work going both forwards and reverse. Objective one accomplished. (FWIW, the APT-E failed at the first try!)

 

2)      The sample pulled a mixed rake of six full sized coaches (seven with a bit of a struggle) around the same layout. This hits our target. Objective two accomplished.

 

3)      Overall the locomotive is pretty much spot on at all major dimensions based on the 3D scan data with just one exception – the cylinders. More on that in a moment. Don’t believe me? Have a look. The blue lines are the CAD drawing of our model, the image behind is a capture of the STL file from the 3D scan of the real loco.

 

compare_1.jpg

 

As you will see from the image, the cylinders are indeed about .75-1 mm too low. This was driven by my desire to have the crosshead guides independent of the frame to make assembly and maintenance of the loco easier. We have already explored many of the approaches mentioned here (well, the sticker idea is new…) but needed to be sure that the model would first perform as intended. If it failed at that it would be nothing more than a shelf queen – with the wrong wheel gauge to boot!

 

Now that we have determined that the basic premise and engineering are successful we can explore other more cosmetic modifications. We will be doing this over the next few weeks with the goal to make the model as accurate as possible while still fulfilling requirements one and two above.

 

Bill Schneider

Rapido Trains

 

That is excellent news, and I wish to be the first to say so. We have been told in this thread that, as the 2nd EP is metal and plastic, significant improvements to the cosmetic appearance cannot be expected.

 

As a non-UK enthusiast, you may not have been fully aware of the truly iconic status of No.1 amongst those of us 'of a certain age'; we all have a mental picture of Stirling's masterpiece, and any 'tinkering' is going to be pretty obvious.

 

If the aim is to sell a representation of No.1 to the general public who visit the NRM, then what you have so far produced will suffice. If, on the other hand, you aim to produce a model that will also find a home amongst the collections of those who have admired this loco for half a century or more, then a little more thought is needed.

 

.... and if 'foil stickers' don't do it for you, try thin etched plates; formed and glued in place. More expensive, though - and very little more effective.

 

Best wishes

John Isherwood.

[No Decorum]

I thought that I asked you all to play nice! 

 

Now that we have determined that the basic premise and engineering are successful we can explore other more cosmetic modifications. We will be doing this over the next few weeks with the goal to make the model as accurate as possible while still fulfilling requirements one and two above.

 

Bill Schneider

Rapido Trains

Bill,

 

Have you started work on GNR coaches to go with this or are you waiting until the locomotive is finished?

[rapidobill]

That is excellent news, and I wish to be the first to say so. We have been told in this thread that, as the 2nd EP is metal and plastic, significant improvements to the cosmetic appearance cannot be expected.

 

As a non-UK enthusiast, you may not have been fully aware of the truly iconic status of No.1 amongst those of us 'of a certain age'; we all have a mental picture of Stirling's masterpiece, and any 'tinkering' is going to be pretty obvious.

 

If the aim is to sell a representation of No.1 to the general public who visit the NRM, then what you have so far produced will suffice. If, on the other hand, you aim to produce a model that will also find a home amongst the collections of those who have admired this loco for half a century or more, then a little more thought is needed.

 

.... and if 'foil stickers' don't do it for you, try thin etched plates; formed and glued in place. More expensive, though - and very little more effective.

 

Best wishes

John Isherwood.

"As a non-UK enthusiast, you may not have been fully aware of the truly iconic status of No.1 amongst those of us 'of a certain age';"

 

Really? Don't jump to too many conclusions.... ;>) Seriously, three of us (of nine) at Rapido are die-hard UK enthusiasts as has been mentioned many times in our various posts and newsletters. I myself mode the GWR  (go ahead, it's an easy shot...) as might be hinted at by my profile photo with IKB at Paddington.

 

 

My only regret is that I didn't get to see #1 when it ran on the GC. I WAS at Rainhill (Rocket 150), although admitting that might put ME into that group of a "Certain Age"!

 

Bill

Edited July 31, 2017 by rapidobill

[PaulRhB]

"I myself mode the GWR (go ahead, it's an easy shot...) as might be hinted at by my profile photo with IKB at Paddington.

 

It's ok we forgive you because you appreciate them all

btw that's because I'm a SR Signalman so it's duty rather than a cheap shot and being on the border to the Western one has to keep alert

Although still trying to resist personally I did successfully tempt my father into ordering one to run alongside my Atlantic

Thanks for the why of the lower slide bar, it still looks superb.

[BR60103]

If I get approval to order one (if the Cdn $ goes up a bit lot more), it better measure up to my Kitmaster model.