https://www.facebook.com/1029207816944233/

Model Railway Reviews, Birmingham (2026)

I hope to offer objecting, considered reviews that will help others to choose which products to buy!

16/05/2026

EFE RAIL (BACHMANN EUROPE) LSWR T3 CLASS No563 IN DRUMMOND GREEN (AS PRESERVED).

EFE SKU: E85030

RRP: £199.95 Purchase Price: £169.99

OVERVIEW: This is EFE Rail’s latest foray into the world of 19th Century steam traction and a complement to the other steam loco in its current range, the LSWR O2.

The T3 though is a different beast being (I think) EFE’s first all-new steam loco model, the O2 having had a previous life as a commission by Kernow Model Centre (as did the Beattie well-tank).
Quite a long time in the pipeline and no doubt driven by the spectacular phoenix-like rise of the exquisite full-size prototype courtesy of the Flower Mill and Swanage Railway, this is such a characterful loco, I just had to review it… I have waited until a Batch 2 model of 563 as it is today.

I have had several conversations with Bachmann’s Graham Proudman about this, and other models and I think it’s interesting to understand Bachmann’s market strategy behind EFE Rail. Yes, obviously its British prototypes but I had thought there was an element of being a less detailed product and therefore aimed to be more ‘affordable’.

But not at all: the main characteristic behind EFE is the use of ‘non-group’ design and manufacturing capacity. When I say ‘non-group’ of course I refer to capacity not owned by Kader Industries who own the Bachmann brands along with Lilliput and Tinco.
This is an interesting approach and is clearly designed to widen Bachmann Europe’s offering. It also has to be said that an RRP f £199.95 is in the middle of the current market range and is a good price for what will be a relatively expensive model to design and manufacture just by dint of being a steam loco with tender. Having said that, there are no tooling variations beyond chimney and boiler fittings to include in the design so that will reduce cost.
The corollary of that is that there are a limited number of ‘tunes’ the manufacturer can play which will limit its production runs and particularly repeats which are a fundamental part of the business case. This also applies to liveries.

Anyway, lets get to the model itself…

MOULDINGS AND DETAIL:
Straight out of the box, which itself is the familiar EFE type, the initial response is positive. I have the as-preserved 563 in Drummond livery, not the original pea-green of its designer William Adams. I was tempted by an original but the appeal of 563 as she is today, won me over.

Dimensionally the loco is pretty accurate, the overall length is 219mm which is a fraction over the correct scale length of 217 but I think all the difference is in the loco-tender gap. The height looks to be spot-on.

Generally, all the mouldings look excellent, with subtle detail and shapes. The footplate is die-cast and features the finest set of loco steps I have yet seen, beautifully sharp and crisp on what are quite prominent features of the prototype. Being die-cast they are also strong which is a great thing for vulnerable projections…
I understand that EFE ‘flirted’ with the idea of working inside motion, which would have been incredible but did not make it to production, I think there may be a prototype out there somewhere. Taking that into account, I am disappointed about how poor the representation of inside motion is in the final model. It is certainly significantly cruder than that which Rapido have achieved in their O1. The valve spindles are quite visible but are very shallow surface mouldings on the top surface of the die-case chassis block. The thin paint over black base does not help.

The other disappointment is the very prominent joint in the rod-splasher box just behind the leading splasher. The front splashers are part of the footplate, while the box and its vestigial rear splasher are part of the cab. Not only is the joint obvious, but careful examination shows that the actual splashers are different widths overall – around 0.3mm (0.15mm each side). Although these values appear tiny, this is quite a big error and appears to originate in the CAD as the whole cab module is narrow (which is plastic, over the die-cast footplate).

This is almost an inch in full scale… I am going to have to ‘do something’ about that on mine!

The hu**ed coal load is removable but not easy to do without risking damage to the tender body itself and reveals a correctly moulded bunker which is great for those of us who want our locos to run with a more prototypically loaded tender.

The boiler mountings do have the ‘inset’ look which I have mentioned in other reviews and I still find inexplicable.
EFE have managed to avoid any prominent tooling seams on the upper side of the boiler, which is laudable, especially compared to some other manufacturer’s efforts, the only visible seam (which is actually a joint) being on the underside of the boiler barrel and hardly noticeable.

The chassis features the earlier (original) compensated suspension design with an equalising beam between the driving wheels. This is correct for 563 but not the later batches. I am not sure if EFE is going to produce an amended version for these variants.
Scores: 7.5/10

RUNNING GEAR:
The back-to backs range from 14.3mm (rear driver) to 14.7mm on the tender. The wheels are 2.7mm wide overall which is correct for RP25-93.

The driving wheel diameter is close to prototype at scale, being 26.2mm which is 99% of scale. The loco is well suited to finer OO track, but they may struggle on coarse scale track.
I like the Bachmann loco-tender plug and socket coupling which combines the electrical and traction loads in one unit and is a more discrete unit than the equivalent on recent Rapido locos.

All the brake rodding etc is fitted which is a boon and nothing fouls the wheels.
Score: 9.5/10

LIVERY:
As has been said many times, colour is highly subjective.
I have seen 563 in the ‘flesh’ so to speak and I do think EFE’s tint is a little off, having perhaps a touch too much yellow, closer to the Urie green shown in marketing materials than the actual shade used.

Having said that of course how do we know who is correct?
The quality of the printing is impeccable and really sets the model off so well. The black has a good level of sheen – not too shiny or matt for what is effectively an ‘ex-works locomotive. The brown looks spot on.

The shiny metal parts are much too ‘tinny’ looking – the reverser reach-rod particularly stands out being the same high-carbon steel as the coupling rods on the real thing and it really shows on the model – for such a prominent component, would an etched item not have been better? Budget, I guess is the issue here, but I think if the item had been etched along with the rods, the cost would be negligible.

The ‘LSWR’ printing on the tender is pretty but I think the letters are a little too short and positioned too high on the tender by about 0.5mm. Again, it’s all fine-judgement stuff but it adds up.
Score: 8/10

TECHNICAL: The model ran well straight from the box and I adopted my common approach of running the locos on rollers at 10v for at least half an hour before running my tests.
EFE have used wipers for electrical pick-up. Plungers are a better option in the reliability / longevity terms, in my opinion.
The loco is a good mass at 195g (I only measure the powered element) which should help traction and running on the rollers it is clear this is a smooth, well-engineered drive benefitting from a quality motor and chunky brass flywheel.

The loco is supplied with an alternative rear wheelset with traction tyres – I do appreciate that is not the standard fit as changing these can be a pest. I really don’t think the rubber-tyred wheelset will be necessary for all but the steepest / most curved model railway.

In terms of scale speed, the loco is quite slow, giving only a scale 25mph at 10v. this is no doubt a result of good gearing and the proof of this is in the exceptional slow-running which is shown not just in the figures (a sustained minimum of scale 7mph at just 2.5 volts) but as shown eloquently by the short video I have included.
The data also shows a tight band between stall, at a barely credible 1.6 volts and restart at just 2.7 volts. This is the best slow-speed performance I have measured to date and even exceeds Rapido’s O1, even though there is one less axle to collect current from!
In terms of operating a model railway, this would be great for shunting (not that you would want to with a T3!) and it should not stall on dead frogs.

Graphs and data in the photos.

So, we come to the real shocker of this review… I thought I would do a minimal tear-down of the loco, not just because it gives insight into the design / engineering but also because it was almost impossible to correctly measure the wheel diameters. And here I have come royally unstuck!

Firstly, the instructions are not complete – there is a small etched part (I think the cylinder drain cross-shaft) that is shown in the diagram but not referred to in the text (unlike all the other parts / steps).

But even after removing this correctly with tweezers the body will just not separate from the chassis because there is a whole other part (the motion cross-shaft) which should be removed first – a precarious task as the trunnion ends are on the footplate, while the cross-shaft goes under the boiler and is fitted (correctly as in the prototype) into the trunnions!

After much careful pushing and pulling which included removing the cab to see if there was something there stopping removal) I have managed to reassemble the loco without much harm!
I think this is unacceptable and risks an owner damaging their model through no fault of their own. I would rather EFE said that the loco itself was not capable of disassembly by the user. There is no real need to remove the chassis from the body (the wheelsets can be exchanged without doing that).

I am reaching out to their service department for comment and will update you in due course.

Removal of the tender body by comparison is straightforward and gives plenty of easy access to fit a decoder for DCC. There is however no actual mounting for as speaker of any style, which will frustrate DCC users.

For the disassembly reason, I am going to mark this down significantly. Perhaps I am being harsh, but the negative risk of unnecessary damage here is significant.
Score: 6/10

QUALITY: Overall, excellent, excluding the issue above. The added detail is reasonably strong and overall, there are no flaws as such, save those discussed at length earlier.
Score: 8.5/10

As with most models of this type, a most welcome addition, somewhat let down by some annoying issues.

I think the model will sell well but issues like the disassembly instructions should be updated in later batches and hopefully anyone buying one will take due not of my unhappy experience!

Overall, a good but not great model, something of a near-miss. I am fully aware of the manufacturing / economic choices manufacturers must make, especially when considering relatively ‘niche’ products like this but the moulding compromises are disappointing.

This is especially so when one thinks about the excellent, class-leading performance.

Aggregate Score: 7.9/10

15/05/2026

Not very subtle but, you know what’s coming next?

11/05/2026

a review of two newe model railway wagons by two different manufacturers

11/05/2026

HEAD-TO-HEAD REVIEW: RAPIDO UK LNWR Diagram 84, 4-PLANK OPEN WAGON v ACCURASCALE BR 16T COAL 16 WAGON

RAPIDO SKU: 950004 RRP: £32.95 each
ACCURASCALE SKU: ACC1062 RRP: £74.95 (pack of 3)
£24.98 each

OVERVIEW: I thought it would be worth comparing these two models side by side as they are both the product of what may be considered ‘state of the art’ in terms of approach and finesse both in the development and ex*****on.

Both manufacturers have embarked on ambitious programmes of development and production of complementary ranges of wagons (and carriages) with Rapido largely focussing on older prototypes, including a significant number of pre-grouping types, while Accurascale have gone mostly for the more modern era (especially the British railways period from 1948 to 1997). Of course there are exceptions, most notably Accurascale’ s chauldron wagons which are a delight… but I must not show a bias (which I do not, I hope!).

The wagons are marketed differently, Rapido favouring more conservative single product packaging, and pricing, while Accurascale have gone for the ‘packet of three’ approach. Both have merits but on a simple ‘value for money’ metric accurascale wins by reducing the unit price considerably.

The Accurascale product has more of a ‘sense of occasion’ with its large, stiff box though on balance, I think they should look to reduce the size of this packaging as its containing an awful lot of ‘fresh air’ which is expensive in shipping terms and takes up a lot of storage space if you are going to buy a meaningful number of these wagons: a single Accurascale box takes up 1.5 times the volume of three of the Rapido boxes!

So, here goes, a comparison of two recently tooled and current models of 4-wheel ‘traditional’ style wagons of ubiquity and long-life, which should form the backbone of any self-respecting modeller’s fleet.

MOULDINGS AND DETAIL:
Starting with the Rapido wagon, first and taking reference from the acknowledged standard reference on the subject (LNWR Wagons Vol1, by Chris Northedge et al), the wagon measures 76.8mm which a shade over the 18’ shown in the Diagram and the width is 32.8 which half a millimetre over the scale length.

The Accurascale 16 tonner is also a little over scale by around the same amount (working out about 1” longer in full size that the stated 16’6” of the prototype.

These measurements may seem like nit-picking and will not worry most but with such good reference material available, a little puzzling. There has been much made recently about manufacturers getting models really ‘wrong’ (I am thinking of Heljan’s recent ‘Warship’) and both Accurascale and Rapido have made a big thing of their fidelity so it would seem curious that these discrepancies arise. Is this manufacturing tolerance or embedded in the design?
In terms of the quality of the modelling and detail both are superb and a step-change from anything the ‘big boys’ have made available for the UK market. Of note is both manufacturers’ use of incredibly finely moulded parts for items such as the brake levers. Accurascale do take the brake parts to a different level though, having individual pull-rods to the brake blocks, whereas Rapido have a solid bar. However, right way up and from a normal viewing angle, the difference is not noticeable.

Rapido have modelled a later D84 vehicle, with the buffer springs at the ends of the chassis, and independent brake gear both sides. The level of detail in these chassis always makes me giggle a little as its only visible when the vehicle is upside down.

Accurascale have also gone to the extent of having sprung buffers which is delightful if a little pointless when one considers how most of these wagons will be run, with the fitted tension lock (or even substitute Kadee type) coupling: more (much more) of this later!

Generally, Accurascale favour a lot more individually applied parts than Rapido which is a mixed blessing: more finesse but more parts to come loose… I do like the separate side door on the Accurascale and might modify one of my Rapido Diagram 84s to have one door open for a yard scene…
Scores: Accurascale: 9.5/10, Rapido: 9/10

RUNNING GEAR:
On the Accurascale samples I have, the back-to backs range from 14.4mm to 14.5mm. The wheels are 2.2mm wide overall which is RP25-88, while the Rapido on the other hand at 2.7mm have adopted a much ‘courser’ standard in line with RP25-110 while the back-to-backs range from 14.59 to 14.62mm.

The Accurascale wagons may be more prone to derailment on less than perfect trackwork and certainly are likely to move around more being less tight to gauge.

Both types run in brass bearings with conical ended axles, those on the Accurascale wagon being 2mm the whole length, while the Rapido ones are chunkier at 2.5mm between the wheels and reduced to a fine 1.5mm at the ends: the wheels are pressed against the shoulder so there is no chance of reducing the back to backs, while the Accurascale ones are so tightly pressed I could not move them at all!

The distance between the inside of the W irons is 23.7 on the Accurascale, while the Rapido although similar, has a reduced effective width as the bearings are proud on the inside, reducing the width (and therefore length of the axle) to 22.7mm between the bearings. This may limit scope for EM / P4 conversion. Of course, the break gear is in line with the wheels and therefore would require considerable dexterity to relocate if re-gauging.

The wheels themselves are well made, the Rapido ones having the elegant if antiquated split spoke design, while the chunky monoblock pans of the 16 tonners are well represented by Accurascale.

In conclusion, both wagons are well suited to Code 100 or finer OO track, but the Accurascale may struggle on less than perfect track.
Scores: Accurascale: 9/10, Rapido: 8/10

LIVERY:
Both liveries are excellently applied, with incredible detail and legibility on the data and manufacturers plates.

Subjectively the density of the white text is stronger on the Rapido than the Accurascale but that may be a deliberate choice to avoid the text ‘popping’ too strongly. I prefer myself to start with a pristine vehicle and weather it down so the stronger Rapido might offer a butter subject.

For comparison I have included some photos of my own kit-built wagons of similar types to the Diagram 84 for comparison.
As to the thorny issue of colour, I do not have a good reference image to compare and so much that exists now will have modern ‘interpretations’, suffice to say they both look about right and do not ‘clash’ with other manufacturers’ interpretations.
Scores: Accurascale: 9/10, Rapido: 9.5/10

TECHNICAL: Being unpowered this is a much simpler section than my other reviews to date, but I am going to concentrate on one issue particularly: couplings.

The advent of the NEW pocket and standards in the 1990s is a wonderful evolution giving the modeller reliability and interchangeability. Subsequent developments include dismountable pockets (both of these models have them) and ‘sprung’ (usually through a thin flexible arm behind the NEM pocket), as we have here, offering radial flexibility and therefore less chance of derailment etc.

Many manufacturers now incorporate the self-adjusting systems pioneered by Keen Systems for longer bodies, ideally bogie coaches, which are not necessary for short wagons such as these.

However, in both applications, the manufacturers seem to have failed to re-jig the fundamental geometry to take into account these innovations, thereby still delivering models with frankly ridiculous inter-vehicle gaps.

I have taken a little time to model the basic coupling arrangements (in this case the 16 tonners) in CAD, but it applies to the LNWR wagon just as well.

You can see that even on ‘train set’ No1 radius curves (371mm) the buffers are nowhere near coming into contact. I grant you, I have a not modelled a cross-over where the tangential throws cause most issue (with models as well as the real things!). But a 6mm gap between buffer faces with the hooks engaged (max separation) and 1.6mm with the coupling faces touching looks and is, silly.

No account of the swing of the coupling has been taken into account and even if the coupling does not swing, the buffers are still not touching, which begs the question: why the added cost and complexity of a ‘swinging’ NEM pocket?

Here is a suggestion to the manufactures: In the case of short wheelbase wagons such as these, make the mounting block (that holds the dovetail) adjustable – supplied at the current position but with the option of moving it back perhaps by having a screw and the block having a slot that allows the position to be adjusted.
Rapido have adopted a screw-in NEM mounting block so it could be adapted to my adjustable concept quite easily. This would give the modeller the option of running the wagons ‘close coupled’ while retaining tension lock couplings (other proprietary couplings are available).

See attached drawings.

Turning to mass, there is a significant difference between the two, with the Accurascale heavyweight contender coming in at 36g, no doubt due to its die-cast chassis while the Rapido is a relatively featherweight 28g. depending on your traction / gradients this is going to be noticeable if you run descent length trains (lest say 25 wagons) the Accurascale rake will be 200g heavier.

My ancient K’s DX goods or a Bachmann G will happily plod along with that mass but something beefier like a Stanier 8F would definitely be required for the 16tonners. My sources tell me that a ‘typical’ LNWR goods of the period (i.e. before 1923) might be up to 50 wagons… apart from cost (That’s £1,647 worth of rolling stock, not including the hotly anticipated LNWR ‘Crystal Palace’ Guard’s van and for comparison 50 off of the 16 tonners work out at a slightly less intimidating £1,249!) I think some locos would struggle to shift the 16 tonners…

It’s worth considering if you add loads, to minimise the additional mass in the 16tonners: a thin sheet of card with coal stuck on / moulded plastic load would be my approach, while some more mass could be hidden under the loads in the LNWR wagons.
There is a real trade-off here: the die cast chassis gives extra mass though losing a little in finesse, while the Rapido with its separately moulded plastic underframe (excluding the headstocks) has wonderful fidelity but the wagon is a tad light.

I am going to mark both down a little because of my frustration with coupling gap issue…
Scores: Accurascale: 8/10, Rapido: 8/10

QUALITY: Overall, both are excellent, but the Accurascale is showing signs that some of the small detail parts are going to undergo 'unplanned dissasembly' with normal handling, while Rapido’s is a much more robust offering.

The Accurascale set does come with a small pack of ‘extras’ including chains and the information leaflet is a delight, but I just think the Rapido edges it due to its more ‘user friendly’ design and manufacture approach.
Scores: Accurascale: 9/10, Rapido: 9.5/10

SUMMARY: Both are wonderful additions to their specific genres, there have been 16 tonners around from all the mainstream manufacturers for years and certainly the Bachmann one set the standard, but accurascale have blown that away with this version.
Rapido of course have adopted not only a high-fidelity approach but also a previously unmodeled prototype thus filling a significant gap.

Pricing is always a big issue with wagons like these, where frankly, having one or two looks ridiculous. Will buyers pay the £10 premium for the 16 tonners here over the Bachmann one when really a modeller needs 20+ to make a decent train?

Similarly, are there enough LNWR nuts out there (thinking of no one in particular!) to buy a dozen Diagram 84s?

I guess only the order books will tell. I for one really hope the answer to both is yes, so we can see even more of this style of wagon!

Aggregate Scores, Accurascale: 8.8/10, Rapido: 8.8/10

29/04/2026

HEAD-TO-HEAD REVIEW: RAPIDO UK SE&CR STIRLING O1 CLASS 0-6-0 LOCOMOTIVE v BACHMANN WAINWRIGHT C CLASS 0-6-0.

RAPIDO SKU966001 RRP: £199.99
BACHMANN 31-463 Purchase Price: £179.99

OVERVIEW: The Bachmann model has now been around for more than 15 years and when released represented another step forward in UK outline 1:76 scale railway models: a fine model of its time.

The Rapido O1 adds another dimension, along with Hornby’s now rather ancient but still good H Class, Dapol’s epic D Class and the revitalised Accurascale P Class (originally Hatton’s), offers a wealth of SE&CR prototypes across the life of the original company, its merger into the Southern and on into BR days where these locos survived longer than most.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the two models, being closely related prototypes of similar original purpose and performance but, in model terms, the Rapido having the benefit of a different engineering approach and improved detail.

MOULDINGS AND DETAIL:
Bachmann C Class – A well-known prototype, well moulded but having some ‘softness’ to some of the mouldings, especially the tender spring-gear which may be a result of the paint being quite thick. I would like to try and track down an ‘early model’ (31-460). (Information from www.modelraildatabase.com with acknowledgment), to compare.

The coal load is particularly hu**ed which I find peculiar for such locos where most historic photos show engines with half-empty bunkers. The moulding of the safety valves etc is quite chunky and the dome has a pronounced ‘inset’ where it meets the boiler – a negative feature I have seen commented on elsewhere. The small details are similarly chunky… The Rapido loco mounts the chimney, dome and safety valve bonnets very finely and avoids the ‘inset’ look.

Turning to the Rapido O1 in general, the crispness and finesse of the moulding is obvious. Every detail is exquisitely (but quite robustly) modelled. The handrail k***s are super-fine but ironically looking at prototype photos, the actual handrail may be a fraction too thick, so making the k***s almost invisible. A minor point I know, but one that highlights the complexity of the design and production compromises facing a manufacturer.
The Bachmann model has a solid chassis where the Rapido has a fine representation of the loco’s motion between the frames including the tops of the sheaves for the inside Stephenson’s motion and the weigh shaft, lifting links and reversing reach-rod on the Driver’s side, along with the drain vale lever.

All the other details such as clacks, lubricator pipework etc are beautifully done on both models, with frankly no discernible difference. The only component that lets the Bachmann model down is the Westinghouse pump on the right-hand side, which is much better on the Rapido model.

One feature on the Bachmann is that the motor block protrudes beyond the prototype’s firebox casing and is painted green. Leaving aside the compromise this represents, I generally think that deviations from prototype like this are usually best painted black.
Beneath the footplate both models capture the prototypes well. As the livery periods slightly differ, the brightly painted sandpipes on the Rapido model really stand out.

The Rapido loco comes with its brake rodding fitted, whereas Bachmann continue to supply it for the buyer to fit. It’s quite a fiddly process on the C Class, requiring an uncomfortable amount of force to bend the parts to get the tiny pips to settle in the holes in the hangers.

The only significantly negative aspect to the moulding I have identified on the Rapido model is the prominent seam on the side of the smokebox at about 2 o’clock as you look at the front.

Scores: Bachmann:7/10, Rapido: 9/10

RUNNING GEAR:
On the Bachmann sample I have, the back-to backs range from 14.3mm (rear) to 14.5mm on the middle. The wheels are 3.1mm wide overall which is quite wide for RP25-93 but not as wide as RP25-110. It’s clearly Bachmann’s own wheel standard and generally I guess it suits a range of track types from ‘traditional’ Peco Code 100 to newer track such as the Peco Finescale Bullhead (which incidentally is precisely 16.5mm gauge).

Rapido on the other hand appear to be adopting ‘pure’ RP25-93, with an overall width of 2.83mm being absolutely bang on!

The back to backs of the Rapido loco are also more consistent all being within 0.1mm of 14.5mm.

The wheel diameters are close to prototype at scale, being 19.9mm for the Bachmann and 20.1 for the Rapido. This equates to 96% accuracy for the Bachman and 97% for the Rapido. These measurements may seem esoteric and frankly obsessive, but when you see my later analysis of performance, you will see why I take such care to measure this accurately.

In conclusion, both locos are well suited to Code 100 or finer OO track, but the Rapido may struggle on very tight radius curves.

I like the Rapido loco-tender plug and socket coupling which combines the electrical and traction loads in one unit, which, although bulky, works well. The Bachmann bar and cables arrangement is a little clunky although the adjustable gap feature is great, so both have their merits.

Scores: Bachmann: 8/10, Rapido: 9.5/10

LIVERY:
I would like to have compared the same liveries but the Bachmann C Class in the ‘elaborate’ SE&CR livery are hard to find – I had one and sold it after I got out of all things ‘South Eastern’… so the Rapido has the exquisite full livery while the Bachmann one is in the ‘simplified’ form applied closer to grouping on the prototypes.
Both are excellently applied.

As to the thorny issue of colour, I do not have a good reference image to compare, though having seen these locos ‘in the flesh’, I think the darker colour is closer to that which is being used on the real things such as those at the Bluebell. Certainly, when you see the photo of the 2 locos I am reviewing here, sandwiching a P Class (from the latest Accurascale production batch) I think its clear that Accurascale and Rapido agree and that Bachmann is the outlier.

None are glaringly wrong and so will all run quite happily together without clashing…

Scores: Bachmann: 9/10, Rapido: 9.5/10

TECHNICAL: Both models ran well straight from the box, though my copy of the Bachmann is not brand-new so had had some running, but I still adopted my common approach of running the locos on rollers at 10v for at least half an hour.

The Bachmann has wipers while Rapido have gone for plungers, which I think are a better option in the reliability / longevity terms.

Surprisingly, the Bachmann loco is heavier at 190g (I only measure the powered element) against the Rapido’s 177g.

Running on the rollers it is clear the Rapido is smoother, more refined drive, being quieter and having less ‘wobble’: at 10v the Bachmann really gets a roll-on!

So, to my ‘tests’… allowing for slightly different wheel sizes here are the comparative results:

Compared with the Bachmann C Class, the Rapido O1 has the stronger and more efficient drivetrain. This is as said before what one should expect from perhaps 15 years of engineering progress…
The O1’s figures show a broader, more usable operating range, with steadier current demand and a healthier balance between motor, gearing and rolling resistance.

The C Class is by no means poor, but it looks more sensitive to speed and load, with efficiency falling away more noticeably outside its best operating band.

Based on the calculated tractive effort (I will publish an article shortly about how I calculate these values, drawing you deeper into the world of the Davis Equation etc, if that is your thing!), the Rapido should also have a modest advantage in theoretical haulage capacity, being able to sustain slightly higher pull before reaching its adhesion limit.

In terms of scale speed, both models appear to run slower than real-world prototypes, both showing a calculated speed around 25mph at 10v, whereas their real-world prototypes would typically achieve speeds up to 50–60 mph in normal service.

In practical terms, the Rapido feels the better-matched mechanism, while the Bachmann is more compromised and less consistent across the range.

The data for the Rapido loco also shows a lower stall (2.6v) and restart (3.5v) voltages than the Bachmann which stalls at 4.9v and restarts at 5.5v. At a practical “operating a model railway” level a low stall and small gap is always desirable, as it translates to predictable low-speed handling and smoother control.

In terms of operating a model railway, neither loco is going to be great at shunting! Having said that, with most of the wheels fitted with pickups neither should stall on dead frogs.

I have included the results in graph form in the photos attached.

I have not done this for this article but in a future review I am going to strip down a loco step by step and see how easy it is to service / repair and reassemble to run as well as it does out of the box…

Scores: Bachmann:7/10, Rapido: 9/10

QUALITY: Overall, both are excellent and apart from the aforementioned fiddly ‘options pack’ absolutely no issues to report. This Rapido loco has now run for about 1.5hours on my rollers at various voltages and reveals no issues at this time.

Scores: Bachmann: 9/10, Rapido: 9/10

SUMMARY: Both locos are great additions to the now very well represented RTR SE&CR products from pretty much all the manufacturers, which along with the burgeoning carriage and wagon stock now being offered for this railway, should prompt some really excellent models of this attractive and interesting Railway Company.

There are small margins between them both in terms of modelling fidelity and performance, most of which are purely the result of the UK Manufacturers finally adopting the sort of technical and aesthetic standards that US and Continental modellers have accepted for decades.

Aggregate Scores, Bachmann: 8.4/10, Rapido: 9.2/10

Address

Birmingham

Website

facebook.com

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Model Railway Reviews posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Model Railway Reviews

16/05/2026

15/05/2026

11/05/2026

11/05/2026

29/04/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category