Rapido Announces the GARX 37' Meat Reefer in N scale

[bbussey]

... My point was that with a very little additional effort these models could have looked much better. We now have a $30 toy with exaggerated engraved and molded-on details, rather than a high-fidelity scale model.  Even 40-year-old Micro-Trains reefer models have more delicately engraved details which is what makes them look like scale models, not toys...

Pete,

I have no inside knowledge on what went into the production process on the Rapido reefer.  However, I believe you're not allowing for one scenario in particular — that the tooling could not be modified cost-effectively at the point when the pilot models were shown here on Railwire.  To change the board gaps would have necessitated full retooling of all of the slides of the body tooling (sides, roof, ends), which would have added significant cost to the project.  I am certain if the changes had been minor, or if the existing slides could have been modified, they would have been done.  Rapido has shown the willingness to do this on a number of their previous projects.

I concede that the board gap tooling could have been narrower, and possibly more shallow.  But I don't concede the model is flawed.  The InterMountain wood reefer, which I prefer over the Micro-Trains models (in part because it is a model of an actual FGE prototype, I will admit), has board gaps just slightly narrower than the Rapido model and no one ever has complained here about them — and InterMountain is a favorite Railwire whipping-boy.

I have four of the red Swift cars in hand and some other schemes en route.  They look fine in a freight consist.  But if you're only collecting models and displaying them in a wall case, as you noted above, I can understand your disappointment.

[peteski]

Pete,

I have no inside knowledge on what went into the production process on the Rapido reefer.  However, I believe you're not allowing for one scenario in particular — that the tooling could not be modified cost-effectively at the point when the pilot models were shown here on Railwire.  To change the board gaps would have necessitated full retooling of all of the slides of the body tooling (sides, roof, ends), which would have added significant cost to the project.  I am certain if the changes had been minor, or if the existing slides could have been modified, they would have been done.  Rapido has shown the willingness to do this on a number of their previous projects.

I concede that the board gap tooling could have been narrower, and possibly more shallow.  But I don't concede the model is flawed.  The InterMountain wood reefer, which I prefer over the Micro-Trains models (in part because it is a model of an actual FGE prototype, I will admit), has board gaps just slightly narrower than the Rapido model and no one ever has complained here about them — and InterMountain is a favorite Railwire whipping-boy.

I have four of the red Swift cars in hand and some other schemes en route.  They look fine in a freight consist.  But if you're only collecting models and displaying them in a wall case, as you noted above, I can understand your disappointment.

Thanks for the view from a manufacturers perspective.  Your hypothetical scenario makes sense.  But I also want to state that in my critiques I don't think I ever mentioned that the car was flawed - I just kept on stating that it could have been done better with (at least what is in my view) a very small change.

[VonRyan]

I was actually looking forward to the Rapido reefers since some of the schemes are WWII-era, but when I saw them in person yesterday at a train show, I decide I'll stick to MT and Atlas wood reefers. Those board gaps were very noticeable and really detracted from the lettering and billboard logos.

Even after I had seen them, I was thinking of at least buying one to support Rapido's efforts (like how I bought MT's heavyweight diner since it was a PRR prototype) but when I took the lid off the jewel case and got a good clean look at one, I was disappointed. I just couldn't justify buying one.

Sorry.

[Sokramiketes]

Pete,

I have no inside knowledge on what went into the production process on the Rapido reefer.  However, I believe you're not allowing for one scenario in particular — that the tooling could not be modified cost-effectively at the point when the pilot models were shown here on Railwire.  To change the board gaps would have necessitated full retooling of all of the slides of the body tooling (sides, roof, ends), which would have added significant cost to the project.  I am certain if the changes had been minor, or if the existing slides could have been modified, they would have been done.  Rapido has shown the willingness to do this on a number of their previous projects.

I concede that the board gap tooling could have been narrower, and possibly more shallow.  But I don't concede the model is flawed.  The InterMountain wood reefer, which I prefer over the Micro-Trains models (in part because it is a model of an actual FGE prototype, I will admit), has board gaps just slightly narrower than the Rapido model and no one ever has complained here about them — and InterMountain is a favorite Railwire whipping-boy.

I have four of the red Swift cars in hand and some other schemes en route.  They look fine in a freight consist.  But if you're only collecting models and displaying them in a wall case, as you noted above, I can understand your disappointment.

There were quite a few comments from Rapido that changes were being made to the tooling for whatever errors were noticed. We were told to stop nitpicking pre-production photos that were enlarged.

We also know that Rapido has said that the deep seams on the baggage car roof were going to be retooled as it was a design mistake. We also know the owner of Rapido chimed in to say the seams on the reefer might be "x microns too wide" but good luck noticing in a moving train.

I'm sorry, but I don't think the HO calibrated eyes at Rapido worried about the reefer despite comments here. They HAVE shown the ability to completely retool, despite any cost, on other models... When they chose to.

[bbussey]

They have retooled when the resulting model was either unprototypical or had assembly issues. A design error that is not representative of the prototype, such as the baggage roof panel separations, is different than an accurate interpretation of the prototype that you may find issue with. Also, a car roof is far less expensive to retool than all the slides of a freight car body. The reefer model is not prototypically incorrect, although the interpretation of the prototype is one you disagree with.

[Sokramiketes]

They have retooled when the resulting model was either unprototypical or had assembly issues. A design error that is not representative of the prototype, such as the baggage roof panel separations, is different than an accurate interpretation of the prototype that you may find issue with. Also, a car roof is far less expensive to retool than all the slides of a freight car body. The reefer model is not prototypically incorrect, although the interpretation of the prototype is one you disagree with.

You're right.  Tooling is half art and half science.  I'm disappointed in the artistic rendition half of this model. 

[sirenwerks]

2 cents time...


Peteski, you did say grossly out of scale, which does really imply flawed.  I know you didn't say 'flaw' but, you know, the implication's there.


Bryan B., from one Bryan B. to another I get the cost for the manufacturer thing, but if enough people speak up about something and, without correction, don't buy, then the manufacturer is left with useless tooling anyway that it may not recoup on.  This may be one of those case's where the manufacturer ends up blaming the market, N scale just doesn't sell sort of crap.  But the board gap's a majorly noticable flaw, IMO, or a better word might be distracting, especially when compared to the MTL car.  Since my era would be pushing it for that car, I don't necessarily have a dog in the fight, but I really hate it when a manufacturer goes boom and blames it on the market, when it was really the manufacturer's mistake.


Lastly, I waited and sat on my hands for a while about this, but I gotta say it now... I'm disappointed in Bill Schneider's why did we bother producing N scale comment.  I know getting productive commentary from TRW can be like herding cats.  And I imagine, for the manufacturer, the extent of criticism can be stinging at times but, damn dude, really?  You and me both.  You're not sure why you put up with whiny N scalers and, as a consumer, I'm not so sure I want to buy from a company that doesn't heed its market, and that would be Rapido in this case.  At best, that public comment was just too Trumpish for me. 


The customer may bitch, whine, and moan - sometimes for no other sake than bitching, whining, and moaning (take it from someone who just bought a new VW TDI) - but we are always right because we're the ones pushing the Buy button.  Friendly advice, if we don't like wide board gaps, Mr. Rapido, next time you may want to rethink your spring it on them after it's too late product development mentality, get some feedback from the folks holding the cash.  I know it's your hard earned capital and you're free to make whatever mistakes you want with it, but we're your free focus group here, we're here to help you before you invest your own hard earned capital on a lump of metal that stamps out models fewer people will buy.  We want you to succeed, so we can get the models we want, and we can give you our hard earned capital.


When it comes time to do the steel General American meat reefer, I volunteer to help you design a better product. 

[peteski]

2 cents time...


Peteski, you did say grossly out of scale, which does really imply flawed.  I know you didn't say 'flaw' but, you know, the implication's there.


Bryan B., from one Bryan B. to another I get the cost for the manufacturer thing, but if enough people speak up about something and, without correction, don't buy, then the manufacturer is left with useless tooling anyway that it may not recoup on.  This may be one of those case's where the manufacturer ends up blaming the market, N scale just doesn't sell sort of crap.  But the board gap's a majorly noticable flaw, IMO, or a better word might be distracting, especially when compared to the MTL car.  Since my era would be pushing it for that car, I don't necessarily have a dog in the fight, but I really hate it when a manufacturer goes boom and blames it on the market, when it was really the manufacturer's mistake.


Lastly, I waited and sat on my hands for a while about this, but I gotta say it now... I'm disappointed in Bill Schneider's why did we bother producing N scale comment.  I know getting productive commentary from TRW can be like herding cats.  And I imagine, for the manufacturer, the extent of criticism can be stinging at times but, damn dude, really?  You and me both.  You're not sure why you put up with whiny N scalers and, as a consumer, I'm not so sure I want to buy from a company that doesn't heed its market, and that would be Rapido in this case.  At best, that public comment was just too Trumpish for me. 


The customer may bitch, whine, and moan - sometimes for no other sake than bitching, whining, and moaning (take it from someone who just bought a new VW TDI) - but we are always right because we're the ones pushing the Buy button.  Friendly advice, if we don't like wide board gaps, Mr. Rapido, next time you may want to rethink your spring it on them after it's too late product development mentality, get some feedback from the folks holding the cash.  I know it's your hard earned capital and you're free to make whatever mistakes you want with it, but we're your free focus group here, we're here to help you before you invest your own hard earned capital on a lump of metal that stamps out models fewer people will buy.  We want you to succeed, so we can get the models we want, and we can give you our hard earned capital.


When it comes time to do the steel General American meat reefer, I volunteer to help you design a better product. 

There we go again - someone gave sirenwerks' post a down vote. Really?!?!?  For honestly speaking out his mind?     Well, I gave my up vote to him.

Sirenwerks,  I predict that this car will be a really big seller, even with what you call distraction and what I guess I implied a flaw.  Why? because I think there are only about half a dozen N scale modelers out there who feel about this as strongly as we do (enough no to buy the product).

[wcfn100]

There we go again - someone gave sirenwerks' post a down vote. Really?!?!?

Meh, someone trolled me back at least a year to let me know what they think about my opinions. 

I'm starting to wonder where the line is on acceptable quality.  I really thought more people would say something once the cars came out.   

Jason

[Chris333]

Yeah I took pics and never posted them.

[Cajonpassfan]

Yeah I took pics and did post them, and got zapped 

[bbussey]

Bryan B., from one Bryan B. to another I get the cost for the manufacturer thing, but if enough people speak up about something and, without correction, don't buy, then the manufacturer is left with useless tooling anyway that it may not recoup on.  This may be one of those case's where the manufacturer ends up blaming the market, N scale just doesn't sell sort of crap.  But the board gap's a majorly noticable flaw, IMO, or a better word might be distracting, especially when compared to the MTL car.  Since my era would be pushing it for that car, I don't necessarily have a dog in the fight, but I really hate it when a manufacturer goes boom and blames it on the market, when it was really the manufacturer's mistake.

I don't think that's the case here.  As Pete stated, I think the model is going to sell well, even with the four-pack packaging as opposed to single cars.  Again, the board gap width doesn't stand out when the model is on the track in a general freight consist.

[sirenwerks]

There we go again - someone gave sirenwerks' post a down vote. Really?!?!?  For honestly speaking out his mind?     Well, I gave my up vote to him.

I thought I was pretty even keeled and diplomatic.

[peteski]

I thought I was pretty even keeled and diplomatic.

So did I. Someone must be very sensitive and trigger-happy on down votes.

[OldEastRR]

Rapido's first N car. Perfection on the first try? Maybe God can do that, not many modelers can. Rapido made some choices, now they see the results, and they have 2 options: either quit on N freight cars totally, or use the experience to tweak future car designs. With practice comes more skill. N scalers have been living with not-quite-right models for decades, so now we're unable to stand them? At least wait to see what Rapido's 2nd N car attempt turns out like before we start dissecting their design philosophy. One data point does not a graph make.