Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 20 of 115 Posts

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
'Tis a little arbitrary, but to prevent the first such round up becoming a bloated mess, how about another for everything announced from
the start of Q4 2019 until end Q3 2020? We have an entry!

Hattons, with a range of generic 4 and 6 wheel coaches, in all the liveries under the sun (almost). I can see these being both liked and
derided. Excellent for those who want RTR 'Victorian' coaches, no use for those who want specific models.

Interestingly, in their possible train formations publicity, two of the steam locos are not available RTR: the beautiful SECR D class, and
the well known LNWR Precedent 2-4-0. Do Hattons hint here at items that may emerge in OO; and possibly from sources other than
Hattons, given that they have ranged fairly widely among other manufacturer's ranges for the suggested traction?
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
(Pennine MC @ 8 Oct 2019, 15:44) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>... I'd still maintain though that the real reason behind the loco models has had nothing to do with promoting pre-Group modelling per se; it's to sell more everyday black locos to transition era modellers who can persuade themselves that going back in period just a few more years isn't such a bad thing.
Indeed. Nothing more than near exhaustion of the viable subjects built by the Big Four and BR. With locos the most profitable item, the net had to be cast wider to find more subjects likely to sell well.

(Pennine MC @ 8 Oct 2019, 15:44) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>... Ever since the current crop of pre-Group locos began to take hold there have been calls for matching stock...
And of course a major retailer has access to good evidence of the market size. I would assume they have a decent CRM system (I would in their shoes) and so can evaluate the customer inputs in a way that is out of reach of the manufacturers.

Anyone can call out for 'make this, make that, I'd buy at least twenty'. But a retailer can collect the asks, and grade their credibility against the customer's spending habits over a period of time. The requests of Mr Proven-Spender in short, are going to be the ones that are acted on.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
QUOTE (butler-henderson @ 10 Oct 2019, 19:06) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>When were the last 4 / 6 wheeled coaches in regular service ? I'm assuming somewhere like the Easingwold or K&ESR.
It may well have been somewhere on the former LNER system, still operating on the former GER section at handover to BR I believe.
The four wheeler used in the Titfield Thunderbolt fillum was ex Tollesbury branch...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
(Adrian Swain @ 15 Oct 2019, 12:48) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>And now we have another Rails/Dapol commission for the SECR D class 4.4.0.
Somewhat surprising that this superlatively beautiful 4-4-0 has had to wait this long for a RTR OO model. Development has clearly been
underway some time, as the NRM/Locomotion announcement presentation had what looks like a first set of test fit parts on show. I leave
it to those who know the prototype to gauge where it is in terms of fidelity. In terms of 'pretty', it's right there...

The interesting side issue is the implication that Hattons knew this model was in development, as it was shown in their advertising for
their 4 and 6 wheel coaches. They also showed the LNWR 2-4-0 Predecent.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
QUOTE (Adrian Swain @ 17 Oct 2019, 17:18) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>... With reference to Hattons 4 & 6 wheel coaches I really cannot see why a range of fictional designs with a range of different liveries is
actually a better idea than a range of accurate coaches also in the same series of liveries. At least one group of modellers gets the
benefit of accurate coaches whilst nobody gets accurate coaches if the designs are freelance...
I suspect this is deliberate side stepping of the whole 'fidelity' aspect in the interest of producing a relatively low cost product. The target
market is RTR, where the only choice is the fictitious and hideously wrong in every respect other then having two axles, Hornby three
compartment passenger wagon. Low cost research to get the designs generically right enough and simple to produce, tool up, production
runs, on sale, chop, chop, chop.

If they can keep the price modest, pretty sure they will find a steady market. (If they don't it will punch a big hole in the often heard
argument for simpler and cheaper less sophisticated models.) Since generic RCH wagons on the wrong wheelbase dressed in PO liveries
still daily march out of retailer's premises and are cheerfully operated behind everything including current TOC liveried traction, I expect
these will do well enough also.

And Hattons will be happy to leave it to those wanting something better to look elsewhere, or buy some of theirs for modification. (The
intelligent choice for a real set of designs would be from a private builder that supplied to any company needing to buy in stock. There
possibly, apart from detail fittings, would be vehicles that had some legitimacy in the 'selection of liveries' stakes. But I know so little of
how such businesses operated to be unable to even confidently name one!)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
My attitude remains that they are a model of nothing, in just the same vein as the RCHish seven plank coal wagon on a 10' wb steel
underframe. Which sell in steady quantity with pretty PO liveries applied; and judging by the on line reception Hattons are going to do
well from these generic coaches. They are shooting at an uncontested target after all, a territory occupied by an improbable four wheeler
from Hornby.

It's what comes next that interests me. The one time domination of RTR OO freight stock by mis-shapen bodies 'modified' to fit on
incorrect generic chassis didn't prevent much better RTR OO wagon models emerging. My kit built stash of about 100 wagons has now
been completely swamped by an accession of hundreds of RTR goods vehicles in what I think of as 'expert kit builder quality'. These are
correctly dimensioned, featured and finished; and small errors (brake gear seems to be where it all goes to pieces) are easily corrected;
with the result that I can run the full size freight trains that a main line operation requires.

Might the same happen in pre-group coaches? I am optimistic, as always.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Whining your way, the 'Kerosene Castle' 18000, the GW's experimental gas turbine electric. Commissioned by Rails of Sheffield from
Heljan. It will be interesting to see the solution to getting it around curves, because there are deep fixed side panels around the wheel
sets which are 'a problem'.

So, with the GT3 already taken, who is going to rush in for the Metrovick 18100? And with the list of post-steam twin bogie traction
prototypes almost exhausted, can we expect another proposal for the Bulleid Leader? Southern tank engines do appear to be in fashion.
Also, this one has the potential to be the best UK steam model for traction, ironically; thanks to the well known capabilities of the centre
motor with shaft drive to both bogies mechanism layout.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Hattons are having a go at bogie coach models, but in O to go with their A3 and A4. Nothing to stop them down scaling and offering
them in OO. But I would guess that knowing the market as well as they must do, they will be confident of buyers for their generic OO
four and six wheel coaches, and they are going to be relatively cheap to produce too. We will see inappropriate combinations as
surely as night follows day: those who cheerfully run wooden bodied PO minerals behind a class 66, are going to use the coaches in the
same way. (If this is fun for the owner that's fine.)

The emergence of a significant number of pre-group loco models over about the last ten years, has I feel 'stirred the pot' a little, quite
noticeable that requests for what can be run with some of these early 1900s locos have increased. And the answer, which is of course
"practically nothing available, you will need to build what kits can be found". It's actually the first couple of generations of bogie stock
that is really required to go with the larger 4-4-0s, and the 4-4-2 and 4-6-0 types with which the UK's 'big engine' era kicked off. Much
of this usefully survived in service into the early BR period, so should find a spread of buyers if offered. Bachmann, Hornby and Kernow
have all dipped a toe in the water: we will only know if these productions did the business for them if further pre-group coach stock is
announced.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
And announced at Warley show, Accurascale have a monster nuclear fuel flask vehicle coming. (This very specialised traffic appears
immensely popular judging by how it is catered for. Second only to the Pullman car company's diners...)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
It should be added that the KR Models' Fell is a crowdfunded proposal. So if you want, go to KR Models and put the money up.

Several announced steam models were on show in various states. Bachmann's 1P 0-4-4T looking very neat in livery samples, that's an
interesting item* we will hopefully see on sale next year. Their long announced all new V2, an EP on the stand, looking very much like a
V2 in the one side on photo I have seen. Also Oxford Rails' J27 0-6-0, Hornby's Large Prairie 2-6-2T , Dapol's Churchward 2-6-0; looking
variously handsome, useful and brutish according to type in livery samples, all likely to be popular once on sale.

*Will Bachmann be the first RTR OO manufacturer to an optimum layout? Motor in the firebox driving the rear coupled axle, maximum of
metal forward of the rear coupled axle, lightweight tackle like the decoder socket and void in the bunker.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
A few more photos of Bach's V2 EP having been seen, it's looking very well indeed. There's good evidence that the mechanism tooling is
all new too, as the formerly cast integral with the chassis block Cartazzi frames representation is very different. Better yet, Bachmann
are setting expectation of a late 2020 delivery.

I think they may finally be getting on top of their manufacturing disruption, as the release list for 2020 looks 'more like it': a steady flow
of the new items coming through. Here's hoping...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 ·
QUOTE (rb277170 @ 27 Dec 2019, 21:18) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...With Bachmann though , I think their credibility is shot to hell,
probably announcing models that will arrive in 2024.
Then again production disruption robbed Hornby of the ability to get sufficient volume to market on schedule for several years not that
long ago, (which was the prime cause of a couple of retailers developing their own supplies of product) and Dapol's OO delivery has been
variable; the newly available class 21 originally announced in about 2009! Bachmann's troubles with the enforced early closure of a
factory was acknowledged, and it looks like the replacement facility is now building up to full output. I am of the opinion that 'normal
service' will be seen to have resumed by the end of 2020.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
Hornby have indeed announced a pretty phenomenal range for their centenary celebration, and to be fair are referencing more than just
Hornby/Hornby Dublo, there is Rovex and Triang in the mix too. Looking forward to seeing it as it comes to market, and if it is 'right' I
will be in for W1 60700, and an A2/3, both in late BR condition.

Another attractive item is a Duchess with a diecast body. I won't go for the limited edition, but will wait in hope that this is to become a
regular range item. (Having now three Hornby steam locos with diecast bodies, I am rather impressed, and would like this to be seen in
more of their new introductions. I was actually hoping for an all new 8F - a much liked H-D product - done this way, as Hornby's 8F is
easily one of their weakest steam models and I could imagine a 'bob on' metal bodied 8F being very popular; and offering the option of
being sold in an HD styled box.)

Rocket and coaches is back in a new tooling and arriving in February. Will it go a storm? I think so, and this time it will work well too.

Also offering A2/2, BR 2MT 2-6-0, APT, class 91, full set of Coronation Scot coaches in LMS streamliner livery, and much else besides.
Some glooming about 'no Manor', nothing new for SR. Come on guys, the 'heritage' behind this centenary was all LMS and LNER. So it
is hardly a surprise when its all about 'origin references'.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #44 ·
Useful black locos rather than mainline monsters in short. (At least we have decent efforts at the J15 and N7 now to hold the torch for
Stratford.) I am not too wildly excited about the prospect of more Doncaster pacifics from the minor classes: of big engines it's the V2
that Bachmann appear to be giving some push - at last - that really appeals.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #46 ·
I an watching the Accurascale Deltic too. There's a question hanging over it that will influence whether I purchase: are they going for
the scale wheel diameter, or the sad old fudge of undersize wheels with the several inevitable 'knock on' errors of appearance? At the
asking price it has to be right, or no thanks.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
QUOTE (butler-henderson @ 22 Jan 2020, 19:35) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Its pretty certain that you cannot do a model of a 37/Deltic etc body shell 100% accurately and expect it to get round set track curves.
The only previous attempt at a wholly accurate model was the FIA Trains LMS 10000/1 which as supplied had a minimum 5ft radius and
with user modification could be got round 3ft radius curves...
So how did Bachmann pull off this feat then, with scale diameter wheels and a correct body plan form, on these and several other models
where the wheel tops are inside the body, and thus liable to foul on below scale radius curves?

Very clever solution in my opinion. The body is elevated above the wheels sufficiently to prevent fouling on 2nd radius.
Now the clever aspect of this solution. It is the easiest thing for any owner with layout curves large enough to adjust the bogie pivot
interface to the main casting. And there's a model that is all dimensionally correct and as a result looks really well. (OO buys enough
wiggle room to get a class 55 around a 34" radius curve.)

I dislike the undersize wheel approach. The problems with this:
First, it's necessary to find and purchase replacement wheelsets that will take the axle gears, then take the drive line apart to install
them if you want to correct the inaccuracy, unless the manufacturer makes them available as exchange items.
Second, there's a temptation to diverge from correct dimensions to make the bogie components 'correct' in relation to the incorrectly
dimensioned wheels. If necessary, availability of exchange alternative cosmetic bogie frames would be a way around that.
Third, unless the designer has thought about it, there may be some solid metal to cut away to allow the scale wheels in: that'll be too
much trouble if the block is the tungsten casting as advertised.
Maybe Accurascale will cover all these points.

In fairness, there are worse solutions yet, see Heljan's ugly job on the DP2 OO model, by very visibly distorting the body form.

In a premium price model I expect a clever solution.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
QUOTE (Graham Plowman @ 23 Jan 2020, 00:05) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I always thought (perhaps incorrectly) that Bachmann didn't pull this feat off and were using under-scale wheels on their Deltic. I don't
have one to be able to check and will stand corrected...
They got it right on their production Deltic, class 55. Too tall as supplied, so that the body clears the wheel tops going round R2. A few
minutes to drop the overall height to scale and there it is, all correct. (Reversible too, a washer on each of the bogie towers restores the
R2 capability if required.) That's the clever way, provide a path to a good scale model.

Unfortunately they went the undersize wheel path on the prototype DP1 produced for the NRM, and it really shows.

There's no simple solution. You cannot just plug in a drive from the class 55 model, as there are subtle differences in dimensions. Put a
set of the correct diameter wheels in, and it is then too tall. Fiddle about to change the relationship of the bogie mechanisms to the body
to reduce the overall height to scale, and the tops of the dummy bogie frames are now jammed against the bottom of the body. Adjust
the position of the bogie frames on the bogie mechanism so that there is a scale gap between the bogie top and the body, and now the
axleboxes don't align with the wheel centres, and the brake shoes are a mismatch to the tyre position. That's the trouble with varying
the visible dimensions of the model exterior away from a correct representation, it 'locks in' the compromise making any corrections a
pain to accomplish. All very frustrating when the main body shell remains one of the best RTR OO items available: why spoil the model
in this way?

I would think it was the NRM that wanted this, as Bachmann's own productions have consistently used the 'raised ride height'
approach to get the longer models around R2. All my larger BR diesels; 40, 47 and 55, have been simply altered to correct ride height
thanks to this clever idea from Bachmann.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #53 ·
QUOTE (butler-henderson @ 23 Jan 2020, 19:39) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So they did not get it right as they had to raise the ride height to provided the clearance. Is this the old adage of people accepting
something is wrong without question but when an alternative approach is taken noticing it as if its the worse thing ever.
I feel it is the right way. For way too small curvature, ride height has to be high. Use much larger radii, and with a simple modification it
looks right altogether. Surely we after best possible rather than bodges?
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #55 ·
QUOTE (Graham Plowman @ 24 Jan 2020, 00:05) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...It is quite possible that DP1 was a completely different toolset, hence the results are different.
It is indeed. I was very surprised back in 2008 on receipt of mine to find that the correct wheelbase of the prototype - slightly different
from that of the production locos - had been accurately reproduced. Still in the mindset of olden times when a 'nearly right' mechanism
already in production would inevitably have been used. But not so, the few millimetres difference in both bogie and overall wheelbase
correctly represented. (But the wheel diameter well undersize, and no simple path to correction...)
 
1 - 20 of 115 Posts
Top