|
|
Post by prr 4467 on Jun 9, 2024 11:41:50 GMT -8
Baikal--
I'll repeat again what I wrote above, that you actually just quoted, but apparently did not fully read:
Rapido was ALSO WORKING ON (advertised and actually took pre-orders for) an HO Scale Canadian 2-8-0, that appears to be on the back burner or otherwise did not get enough pre-orders. They were so far as I am aware ready to cut the tooling for that 2-8-0, but I don't follow or pay attention to what Rapido is doing.
Also, Rapido did clearly state in their various videos that IF their announced steam locomotives did well, THEN there would be MORE steam locomotives. I can only assume that they were planning this latest announcement at that time as something they thought would be neat that they could sell in enough quantities to make it worthwhile. Just a couple years ago Rapido said in their videos that they were planning a family of steam locomotive releases.
Since OO can operate on HO there will be plenty of buyers who will not care much about the minor scale difference, who will just buy it and enjoy it regardless of the size being "a little off" roughly 13%. It is factually true that some "HO Scale" PFM/Tenshodo Crown brass steam locomotives were built to an exaggerated scale because the importer thought it made them more impressive in appearance, and the market readily accepted those locos in the past. This certainly includes but is not limited to the Rio Grande M-75 4-8-2, for which the boiler is actually 10% too large (per John Glaab, author of the Second edition Brown Book of HO Brass Steam Locomotives). Those Crown locos have been pretty popular in the past. Additionally, on those brass imports they actually moved domes around as they saw fit if in their opinion it helped the loco "aesthetics" (my sources, since you apparently are not going to trust anything I ever say, are none other than John Glaab and Howard Zane. Howard is still very much with us and has forgotten more about HO model steam locomotives than I'll ever know. He is the one who mentored Dan Glasure, and it was Howard's collection that, after being purchased by Dan Glasure and Dan's father, became brasstrains.com).
I understand the scale difference and do not need to be lectured about that. You need to actually grasp that there will be plenty of actual buyers out there who will not care about the mathematical difference. It might not include me, but that doesn't matter. I think these will sell.
As I said above, I have no dog in this; I'm out.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jun 9, 2024 12:38:00 GMT -8
Interesting about the M-75. Below we can compare photos of two models of the M-75. One is by Tenshodo, the other is a Glacier Park version. If anything, it appears to me that the GPM model is slightly fatter. This would then mean that GPM really screwed up, because their version is much more recent, and has the benefit of more extensive research. Plus the knowledge that theirs should be smaller than the Tenshodo.  Ed |
|
|
|
Post by grahamline on Jun 9, 2024 12:46:14 GMT -8
The Rapido S160 in 00, 1/76.2 scale. The Roco S160 is HO, 1/87.1 scale. Both are models of standard gauge engines and the models will run on 16.5mm track. I don't know about flange depths. The S160 was built to several gauges including: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) 1,520 mm (4 ft 11+27⁄32 in) Russian Railways 1,668 mm (5 ft 5+21⁄32 in) Renfe Operadora 1,676 mm (5 ft 6 in) Indian Railways The Wikipedia article at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USATC_S160_Class does not mention narrower gauges. If anyone has access to good drawings, that would tell you if the frame design would accommodate a gauge narrower than North American standard gauge. |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Jun 9, 2024 13:00:15 GMT -8
...the size being "a little off" roughly 13%.
The Rapido S160 is more than 14% oversized for HO. Why do you keep bending the truth, even a bit? Do you have access to a calculator?
It's about midway between S and HO scales. Hardly "a little off" HO scale. You could also say it's "a little off" S scale.
Rapido has made exactly one small HO scale steam loco. Your statement about Rapido "attempting to fill a niche in the market" is just more groupiespeak.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Jun 9, 2024 13:05:18 GMT -8
Interesting about the M-75. Below we can compare photos of two models of the M-75. One is by Tenshodo, the other is a Glacier Park version. If anything, it appears to me that the GPM model is slightly fatter. This would then mean that GPM really screwed up, because their version is much more recent, and has the benefit of more extensive research. Plus the knowledge that theirs should be smaller than the Tenshodo. Ed
The BS that fanbois spread to defend Rapido is boundless.
That Glacier Park model is fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Jun 9, 2024 13:08:44 GMT -8
The Rapido S160 in 00, 1/76.2 scale. The Roco S160 is HO, 1/87.1 scale. Both are models of standard gauge engines and the models will run on 16.5mm track. I don't know about flange depths. The S160 was built to several gauges including: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) 1,520 mm (4 ft 11+27⁄32 in) Russian Railways 1,668 mm (5 ft 5+21⁄32 in) Renfe Operadora 1,676 mm (5 ft 6 in) Indian Railways The Wikipedia article at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USATC_S160_Class does not mention narrower gauges. If anyone has access to good drawings, that would tell you if the frame design would accommodate a gauge narrower than North American standard gauge.
The Rapido loco is narrow gauge. 7 1/16 prototype inches too narrow.
Kinda surprising the prototype didn't have any narrow gauge versions but did have the three wide-gauge versions. The frame may not have allowed NG.
|
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Jun 9, 2024 13:10:15 GMT -8
It’s not a little off anything. It’s OO scale, for the UK market, and on-scale for that gauge. It’s not narrow gauge either too. When you order it, you’ll order it from over there and it will get shipped to you. Been there before on a model I was partial to.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jun 9, 2024 13:20:13 GMT -8
It’s not a little off anything. It’s OO scale, for the UK market, and on-scale for that gauge. It’s not narrow gauge either too. When you order it, you’ll order it from over there and it will get shipped to you. Been there before on a model I was partial to. OO scale for the UK market uses HO track. It's been pointed out that that's equivalent to a track gage of about 4' -1 3/8", for OO scale. Which is definitely narrow gage. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jun 9, 2024 13:27:55 GMT -8
Kinda surprising the prototype didn't have any narrow gauge versions but did have the three wide-gauge versions. The frame may not have allowed NG.
But where would they have run? For what narrow gage railroad would the USATC have been likely to have needed a large amount of steam locomotives? Ed |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Jun 9, 2024 13:29:08 GMT -8
It’s not a little off anything. It’s OO scale, for the UK market, and on-scale for that gauge. It’s not narrow gauge either too. When you order it, you’ll order it from over there and it will get shipped to you. Been there before on a model I was partial to. OO scale for the UK market uses HO track. It's been pointed out that that's equivalent to a track gage of about 4' -1 3/8", for OO scale. Which is definitely narrow gage. Ed
There are people who don't know the difference between scale and gauge. Some never will no matter how it's explained. Over 50% of Americans can't understand the concept of "per capita" so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise.
The Rapido S160 is indeed narrow gauge. Which, since no prototype existed, makes it more a toy than a model.
The HO scale Roco model is not narrow gauge.
|
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Jun 9, 2024 14:16:37 GMT -8
UK modelers don’t consider OO toys. All Rapido OO models are built the same way. It uses HO track as a compromise for how the models used to be made. It s considered standard gauge and is only considered narrow gauge by people on this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Jun 9, 2024 16:07:56 GMT -8
UK modelers don’t consider OO toys. All Rapido OO models are built the same way. It uses HO track as a compromise for how the models used to be made. It s considered standard gauge and is only considered narrow gauge by people on this thread.
You acknowledge that the model's gauge is narrow* while claiming it's not a narrow gauge model.
* the "compromise"
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamline on Jun 9, 2024 17:36:51 GMT -8
OO scale models in the UK have been produced to run on 16.5mm gauge track for longer than most of us have been alive. The minority of British modelers who prefer dimensionally correct gauge track use a set of standards known as EM and use 18.83 mm gauge track. It makes a noticeable difference in the appearance of the models.
O gauge here has a similar scale/gauge situation but people cope.
|
|
|
|
Post by cp6027 on Jun 9, 2024 17:54:17 GMT -8
The CN 2-8-0 was included on the list of twelve steam locomotives that Rapido announced as part of their "Icons of Canadian Steam" series back in 2015.
I don't think they ever got to the point of formally announcing or taking pre-orders for the CN 2-8-0.
The CN 4-6-0 was shelved for a while due to lack of pre-orders but now has a pre-order deadline of June 15th.
The CP 4-6-0 also seemed to languish for a while until Shira Trains launched their own competing model and then we wound up with D10s from two manufacturers.
The original "Icons of Canadian Steam" list is below. Only the first four have made it to formal pre-orders IIRC...
Canadian Pacific 4-6-4 Royal Hudson H1c, H1d, H1e
Canadian Pacific 4-6-0 D10e, D10f, D10g, D10h
Canadian National 4-6-0 Ten Wheeler H6d, H6g
Canadian Pacific 4-6-4 Hudson H1a, H1b
Canadian National 2-8-0 Consolidation N2b, N4a
Canadian Pacific 4-6-2 Light Pacific G5c, G5d
Canadian National 4-8-2 Mountain U1f
Canadian Pacific 4-6-2 Heavy Pacific G3e, G3f, G3g
Canadian National 4-6-2 Pacific J4d, J4e, J4f
Canadian Pacific 2-10-4 Selkirk T1b, T1c
Canadian National 4-8-4 Northern U4a, U4b
Canadian Pacific 4-4-4 Jubilee U4a
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jun 9, 2024 19:40:35 GMT -8
OO scale models in the UK have been produced to run on 16.5mm gauge track for longer than most of us have been alive. The minority of British modelers who prefer dimensionally correct gauge track use a set of standards known as EM and use 18.83 mm gauge track. It makes a noticeable difference in the appearance of the models. Interesting that OO track gage in England is 18.83 mm (no tolerances noted), while OO track gage in the US is 19.05-19.61. Difference is half a millimeter, but that's a significant difference. I expect that's because "EM" is much more recent. Similar, but not as dramatic. It surely would have been nice if the early folks had got it exactly right, instead of compromising. Imagine if our HO wheel treads were exactly the proper width and the track dimensions were prototypical. Yeah. Nobody's trains would work. Which was why it took so long to attempt Code 88 wheels and Code 83/70 track. Which clearly can't work. Right? Ed |
|
|
|
Post by sd80mac on Jun 10, 2024 5:30:32 GMT -8
UK modelers don’t consider OO toys. All Rapido OO models are built the same way. It uses HO track as a compromise for how the models used to be made. It s considered standard gauge and is only considered narrow gauge by people on this thread.
You acknowledge that the model's gauge is narrow* while claiming it's not a narrow gauge model.
* the "compromise"
And you are splitting the tiniest of hairs to prove your "uhhhmmm ACKSHUALLY" contrived point. |
|
|
|
Post by cera2254 on Jun 10, 2024 5:43:17 GMT -8
I really have no dog in this fight, but an OO scale locomotive with running gear spaced for HO gauge track certainly is not standard gauge, standard gauge in OO scale would be larger than HO. So basically the model is a standard gauge locomotive that runs on narrow gauge track.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Jun 10, 2024 5:52:05 GMT -8
You acknowledge that the model's gauge is narrow* while claiming it's not a narrow gauge model.
* the "compromise"
And you are splitting the tiniest of hairs to prove your "uhhhmmm ACKSHUALLY" contrived point.
Thanks for confirming I'm right. But I didn't contrive anything. The 7 1/16 inch gauge difference is real my friend.
|
|
ictom
Full Member
Posts: 104
|
Post by ictom on Jun 10, 2024 6:27:08 GMT -8
Seriously, short memories, perhaps? Or else people on here focus so much on diesels that they simply haven't been paying attention. Over the past few years there have been plenty of posts on various topics on this forum and also over on the Model Railroader General forum from a plethora of hobbyists (not myself) who have stated that there aren't enough small steam locomotives available in HO, roughly coinciding with Rapido's original announcement that a Canadian 2-8-0 as well as the 4-6-0 were planned, and Rapido had even stated at that time that IF they did well there would be MORE small steam locos. Since then, the 4-6-0 got made along with the hudson while the Canadian 2-8-0 appears to be on the backburner. I personally don't need an HO or OO Big Boy or Challenger, but I'm sure there will be people who can use a small steamer and I think this S160 could be neat for some of them. BLI has me covered with locos that either are out and available to buy or are coming soon, so I do not have a dog in this. Like the S1 that they just unofficially placed on their website and Trainworld is accepting pre-orders for already? As for small steam, I have the Rapido Royal Hudson (Southern version) and a big 2-8-0 might compare favorably in size. It's pretty small compared to US Hudsons, IMHO. I think the S160 that Rapido UK announced is pretty cool. I especially like the Omaha (referred to as Big Jim above). Like you, if I could ever get myself uncovered from the BLI stuff I want, I'd like to get a few OO locos. Before this one was announced, that Hornby P2 looked really attractive. Looks like they've started messing up the quality control on that new loco-to-tender coupler, but it seemed to work very well on the P2. I wish Broadway would come up with something better. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jun 10, 2024 7:14:26 GMT -8
At 2120, the S160 has to have been, by far, the highest quantity of a single design of a steam locomotive ever produced in the United States.
If only Roco didn't want so much money...........
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Jun 10, 2024 7:17:17 GMT -8
The BS that fanbois spread to defend Rapido is boundless.
That Glacier Park model is fine.
Rapido fanboys? Here? I thought this was the place where all we did was bash Rapido 24/7.
Which is it?
I tend to believe most of us are somewhere in the middle.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jun 10, 2024 7:38:07 GMT -8
The BS that fanbois spread to defend Rapido is boundless. That Glacier Park model is fine.
Rapido fanboys? Here? I thought this was the place where all we did was bash Rapido 24/7.
Which is it? I tend to believe most of us are somewhere in the middle.
Apparently we have to be hot or cold. |
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Jun 10, 2024 7:45:54 GMT -8
Rapido fanboys? Here? I thought this was the place where all we did was bash Rapido 24/7.
Which is it? I tend to believe most of us are somewhere in the middle.
Apparently we have to be hot or cold. There shall be no in-between! No one on the fence! |
|
|
|
Post by ernestbaron on Jun 10, 2024 8:30:23 GMT -8
Apparently we have to be hot or cold. There shall be no in-between! No one on the fence! Only a Sith deals in absolutes! |
|
|
|
Post by grahamline on Jun 10, 2024 8:39:19 GMT -8
Ed S. said:
[/quote]
Interesting that OO* track gage in England is 18.83 mm (no tolerances noted), while OO track gage in the US is 19.05-19.61. Difference is half a millimeter, but that's a significant difference. I expect that's because "EM" is much more recent.
Similar, but not as dramatic.
It surely would have been nice if the early folks had got it exactly right, instead of compromising. Imagine if our HO wheel treads were exactly the proper width and the track dimensions were prototypical.
Yeah. Nobody's trains would work. Which was why it took so long to attempt Code 88 wheels and Code 83/70 track. Which clearly can't work. Right?
Ed[/quote]
*no one in the UK would ever refer to their EM project as OO.
I don't know a great deal about EM or the detals of how the standard is applied, but I do know that people have built large railroads in EM and seem happy with the results. Particularly with pre-1920s equipment, it gives the models a distinctly different look. OO seems to be a compromise that few are willing to overturn. Finer tolerances in the US are the same -- very few, including myself, are ready to plunge in.
|
|
|
|
Post by typhoon on Jun 10, 2024 8:48:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by prr 4467 on Jun 10, 2024 9:47:25 GMT -8
It’s not a little off anything. It’s OO scale, for the UK market, and on-scale for that gauge. It’s not narrow gauge either too. When you order it, you’ll order it from over there and it will get shipped to you. Been there before on a model I was partial to. OO scale for the UK market uses HO track. It's been pointed out that that's equivalent to a track gage of about 4' -1 3/8", for OO scale. Which is definitely narrow gage. Ed Strict mathematical ratio between the scales yields a difference of about 13%. The difference from OO scale to HO scale is about 13% in model size. The OO model will appear 13% larger than a true HO scale model of the same thing, IF you had the correct track gauge for it, which in HO would have to be custom laid. Just like "large scale" which, depending upon the manufacturer and model purchased, can vary between 1:22.5, 1:24, 1:29, 1:32 and probably some other sizes I am forgetting, all running on the same track gauge. The purists who want the gauge to be as correct as possible for American standard gauge tend to prefer 1:32, but USA Trains and Aristocraft did actually use 1:29, at least for awhile. The stated reason for that was so that their "standard gauge" American trains would not look as drastically off from, different from, whatever terminology you might want to use, from the American "narrow gauge" trains made to run on the exact same track. There was always a lot of scale bickering on the various large scale model train forums. |
|
|
|
Post by prr 4467 on Jun 10, 2024 10:08:00 GMT -8
Interesting about the M-75. Below we can compare photos of two models of the M-75. One is by Tenshodo, the other is a Glacier Park version. If anything, it appears to me that the GPM model is slightly fatter. This would then mean that GPM really screwed up, because their version is much more recent, and has the benefit of more extensive research. Plus the knowledge that theirs should be smaller than the Tenshodo. Ed Ed-- I am specifically relating a story that John Glaab was VERY fond of stating and stated on multiple occasions. Likewise, the anecdotal comments from John Glaab that the importer, in this case PFM, I believe Don Drew, routinely moved stuff like domes around for the final production models to make them "more aesthetically pleasing" to his eye. John was on a first name basis with Don Drew, so if anybody would know, I'm sure it was him (John also was a retired aerospace engineer who took great pains to get the details he was reporting on to be correct). I do NOT have drawings of the Rio Grande M-75 so I can't begin to confirm the boiler size. It is an impressive loco, and I once did own the Tenshodo version. Also there have been several cases where various brass manufacturers actually copied models previously produced by other manufacturers and literally copied previous mistakes in the process. The loco is impressive with its very fat boiler, and I'm not sure you will be able to find any other 4-8-2 with a boiler that fat, so Mr. Glaab may have been correct. On this very forum, much has been made about BLI copying Kato's diesel pilot coupler pockets from more than 20 years ago, despite those pilots being wrong, and continuing to copy those pilots even on new production from the ground up diesels. Within the history of brass model production, the copying of previous mistakes has been known to occur fairly often. Also, where they were limited edition serial numbered models, Howard Zane has told me that he has actually owned two of the same models that had the exact same serial number. Even the number of brass models imported differs as some of them will say xx of 300 made, some xx of 200 made, when it's the exact same model (supposedly). As I look at the photos of the above 2 models, to my eyes, there are dimensions between key points that to my eyes appear larger on the Tenshodo version. I'm not using a ruler; I'm on vacation sitting in a hotel while it rains outside. Look at the dimension from the smokestack vertically down to the pipe that connects the smokebox to the cylinder. On the old Tenshodo model, it does appear to be a slightly longer distance. The Tenshodo F units were known to be awful for their completely incorrect nose contours, so I would not assume Tenshodo got things right. I'd love to own that fantastic Glacier Park model, indeed, but I do not think I'll ever have money for something like that. Instead, I have to be bargain conscious and own brass hybrids. |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Jun 10, 2024 10:26:48 GMT -8
OO scale for the UK market uses HO track. It's been pointed out that that's equivalent to a track gage of about 4' -1 3/8", for OO scale. Which is definitely narrow gage. Ed Strict mathematical ratio between the scales yields a difference of about 13%. The difference from OO scale to HO scale is about 13% in model size. Just like large scale which, depending upon the manufacturer and model purchased, can vary between 1/22.5, 1/24, 1/29, 1/32 and probably some other sizes I am forgetting, all running on the same track gauge.
Nope.
The math:
OO scale / HO scale ≅ X
4/3.5 ≅ 1.1428...
In other words, OO scale is more than 14.28% larger than HO scale.
When it comes to volume & mass OO is almost 50% larger than HO. Which even took me aback. (4/3.5)^3 ≅ 1.4927...
An OO layout would need to be over 30% larger than an HO scale layout to represent the same prototype area. Or you could make the OO layout about 23% smaller.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colin 't Hart on Jun 10, 2024 11:16:40 GMT -8
When it comes to volume & mass OO is almost 50% larger than HO. Assuming a model of the same prototype. But bear in mind that UK locomotives are much smaller than their North American counterparts. To wit, an SW900 pulling a wrapped Class 66.  |
|
