The Rapido NSC Centerbeam Cars Have Arrived

[bbussey]

We pay top dollar for a new model,  why should we spend more money just to install correct wheels?  Like I recently mentioned elsewhere, why do manufacturers do this to us?  I don't think making correct wheels costs more than the wrong size wheels they use.  If companies like ESM or FVM can produce and sell wheels which are more accurate, why can't model manufacturers do the same?

Heck, even if correct wheels would add $4 more ($1 per wheel set) to the cost, I'm sure most buyers would not blink an eye (especially since the have to spend that money on add-on wheels anyway.

I don't get it either.  Designing, tooling and producing a wheel for us is the least expensive component, start-to-finish.  We even are able to release or pre-release new configurations in small quantities until a commercially-available production run is feasible, as we just did here with the PD3500 replacement wheels.  And if a model already has machined metal wheels, there's really no excuse not to have a decent wheel.  As Pete indicated, the $4 vig already has been added, no reason not to have people feel good about paying it.

[lock4244]

The outside wheelset of the truck is interfering with the black brake line loop... All of my examples have this issue, in some cases its a bit more pronounced then others. I'm pretty confident that is what is causing your derailment problem. It only interferes with truck movement in one direction.

The couplers, well....The springs are terrible. Too long, too stiff.... But at least from what I could tell, not causing any derailment issues. I tested before installing my couplers to verify the stock configuration.

Andrew

I've had issues with derailing with both A and B ends leading, and in each case the derailed axle was trailing axle on the railing truck and it derailed towards the inside of the curve. I'll take a look at them again later tonight with a eye towards the brake piping, thanks for the tip. Wouldn't be the first time underbody details on a Rapido car was an issue.

[lock4244]

Swapping in true MTL couplers and springs (and modifying/removing the black air hose) might resolve those issues.  Regarding the coupler stiffness, might be able to get away with swapping in an MTL replacement spring.  Although I'm not enamored with the 1980s retro non-blackened trip pins either.

I'll be a little annoyed if it winds up being that a replacement MT coupler is necessary to correct the issue... not a cheap car. I'll give it a try on one car, see how that goes. Thx.

[GaryHinshaw]

I haven't had a chance to really run my cars yet, but I did get a chance to snap some photos this morning.  The first thing I will say is that I love these cars and I give Rapido a A for these (but not an A+).  I elaborate below.

First pair of shots show a comparison between the Rapido model on the right and the most comparable Red Caboose model I have on the left:





The wheels and couplers have already been commented on.  I have nothing to add to that discussion. (I just expect to change wheels and couplers on almost all the cars I buy, alas.)   The RC model has well documented issues of high ride height, incorrect wheelbase, and incorrect end details (for this style of centre beam).  The Rapido model corrects all of those issues.  Here is a comparison to a Red Caboose model I modified some time ago to try and correct some of those issues:



The modified RC car is ok, but one thing I had not appreciated until now is the (over)thickness of the RC floor.  Also, it is still too light; the weight of the Rapido model is a huge improvement.

The details on the Rapido model are nicely done:





Aside from the wheel and coupler swap, the only detail improvement I plan to make is to replace the cast grab iron on top of the bulkhead with a wire one. 

One last comment: one car would not roll out of the box.  It turned out that the brake beam detail they included on the truck was falling out and hitting the ties.  (It seems to be a separate press-fit part.)  This is one case where they made a terrible design decision: and added detail that is totally invisible, adds cost, and decreases reliability.  Really?   



I will be removing this part on all of my models.  But aside from that, I love these cars and I will be buying many more!

[ednadolski]

The changed wheels do look better. Which ones are those, and do you recall the axle length?

It's hard to see in the pic, but the Rapido trucks seem to be an improvement over the RCs.  Not much to do about the over-wide sills on the RC, tho perhaps adding loads would help it look a little better.

The Stanray on the Rapido kind of jumps out, tho I give kudos for the attempt.  One could easily clip those off, and not miss them too much.  (Tho a scale wire or etch part would be a nice replacement).

Ed

[bbussey]

Okay, I swapped in proper wheels (ESM 36"/.553") and clipped the air hose with nippers even with the back of the coupler box.  I still might yank the air hoses as it looks like they may interfere with the opposing trip pins of coupled equipment.  Would have preferred etched end platforms instead of the thicker plastic, but I can live with it.





The coupler height is where it should be with the replacement wheels installed.



And it looks more meaty with the proper size wheels (and no pizza-cutter flanges).



I have to go digging in my stash for lumber loads to populate this thing.  I think it will look even better partially loaded.

[ljudice]

my only issue with my 5 cars is the brake detail part - i mean they had to know it would snag ties, turnouts on some percentage of cars???
....

definitely getting more...

[ljudice]

re: loads

do the columbus trainmaster loads fit:

[mu26aeh]

re: loads

do the columbus trainmaster loads fit:

He is trying them out this week, posted on his facebook page

[wcfn100]

I ordered three for my son.  Along with the wheels hitting the air line, the trucks hit the jack pad tabs.


Jason

[GaryHinshaw]

re: loads

do the columbus trainmaster loads fit:

I don't recall the source of the load pictured below:



But I can say that a load which fit snugly but comfortably in a Red Caboose car (left) fits equally well in a Rapido car (right), so no real issues there.   I'll swap in some 36" wheels, remove the brake beams, and take the cars for a spin around the layout this weekend to see how they perform.

And just to say, I pre-ordered 9 of these cars and since receiving them, I've ordered 10 more.   

[packers#1]

Okay, I swapped in proper wheels (ESM 36"/.553") and clipped the air hose with nippers even with the back of the coupler box.  I still might yank the air hoses as it looks like they may interfere with the opposing trip pins of coupled equipment.  Would have preferred etched end platforms instead of the thicker plastic, but I can live with it.

The coupler height is where it should be with the replacement wheels installed.

And that’s all I needed to see to buy two packs for my cars, nice ad 

[basementcalling]

Totally agree regarding the wheel in general and the wheel face in particular, not my favorite design.  Interesting that the wheel diameter is undersized on the centerbeam flatcar as they are on the PD3500, and that the coupler height on both models was designed for the proper diameter wheel.  Sounds like a production faux pax in both cases.

I have a CP centerbeam flatcar that arrived yesterday.  I'll confirm that the ESM 36"/.533" fits later today and report back.

Swapping in true MTL couplers and springs (and modifying/removing the black air hose) might resolve those issues.  Regarding the coupler stiffness, might be able to get away with swapping in an MTL replacement spring.  Although I'm not enamored with the 1980s retro non-blackened trip pins either.

At $33-41 per car street price, these cars should not have these issues. Rapido makes amazing display case models, but their N scale efforts won't truly become instant sell outs until they realize most of us want to run our cars, not leave them sitting on a siding. Maybe the factory installed the wrong sized wheels cause I can't tell they are the wrong size without measuring, but the coupler issues should be a no brainer. I mean old style Rapido couplers looked hideous but they did work. MT has been the default standard for years, so I don't understand why companies keep trying to reinvent the wheel here.

I can take ride height and coupler issues or a lack of free rolling trucks on a $17 Red Caboose centerbeam, but if I am going to fork out 215 bucks for a 6 pack of cars, I shouldn't have to DO anything to them other than weather and add a load to get them to run reliably.

[GaryHinshaw]

I spent a few hours this morning going over one of these cars and I have a few more comments and a list of improvements I'd like to make.

Wheels - as Bryan notes, 36" wheels with .553" axles are suitable replacements, and they look much better.  This shouldn't be necessary, but it is....  After the wheel replacement, my test car would not roll freely through an 18" curve until I trimmed the back of the airline flush with the coupler box.   

Trucks - they are a little too wobbly for my taste.  The screw post is too tall for the bolster.  I think I'm going to 3d-print a bushing to fit in the truck to reduce the play a little bit.  Annoying, but minor.  Note also that the press-fit brake beam is prone to falling out with disastrous results.  I am removing them on my cars. 

Couplers - the lack of swing occurs because (take your pick) the screw post is too short and/or the side of the box lid is too short.  Thus it's possible to tighten the lid enough to bind the coupler.  The easy solution is to back off the box screw a bit, but this shouldn't be necessary.     I am holding off on doing anything about this until I have samples of the VRK and/or N-Possible couplers to evaluate.  Converting these to LEZ couplers would require removing the screw post, which I'm not willing to do (yet).

Cross walks -  several of my cars have them slightly askew.  I will likely 3d-print a replacement with see-through holes.

Brake lines -  one of the lines is too long and bows downward un-prototypically.   The lines that run to the trucks should angle downward but don't (this is quite an obvious feature on the prototype).  I am contemplating printing some hangers to improve this detail.

Operations - with the air lines trimmed, the brake beams removed, and the couplers inspected for swivel, the cars operate very well on my layout.  Unlike the Red Caboose cars, I can run these near the front of a train without fear of string-lining.  I can also back a long train into the yard without fear of these cars jack-knifing.

So, despite a few face palms, these cars are a major improvement over the Red Caboose offerings.   Given how abundant centre beams are on Tehachapi, I am very pleased.

[BCR 570]

Not surprisingly coupler operation is spotty... they don't want to couple without encouragement (to varying degrees) and when they do couple the connection isn't secure and they will uncouple fairly quickly.

I am having the same problem with most of my 5092 boxcars from NARC.  Many of the cars will not remain coupled due to the couplers remaining open.  This is particularly maddening given that NARC went to the trouble and expense of having Micro-Trains assemble the couplers prior to shipping them to the factory in China producing the models.


Tim