Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
(Greyvoices @ 18 Mar 2018, 22:45) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I would be happy if Dapol finally produced the Class 21/29 ...... D61XX...
Provided they reproduce the appearance correctly, I'll be with you there. Unfortunately the EP sample on Dapol's site fails to capture the very distinctive body shape, most markedly all around the bottom of the body at bufferbeam level. Dapol have acknowledged that there is work to do, so it is wait and see...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
Any of the LNER's secondary power, mostly of pre-group designs, would be welome in truth. But I have to say that what with the N7 announced by Oxford, I am pretty much 'made up' for the time being.

(That there are also the prospects of the Stirling Single from NRM/Rapido, J70 from MR/Rapido, GN condition O2 from Heljan, renewed J39 and V2 from Bachmann, the NBL DE type 2 BoBo [aka class 21] from Dapol; and the temptations of the J36 from Hornby and 812 from Rails/Bachmann which I will probably purchase because I like the 0-6-0 as a genre: well really, my layout runneth over. Nine different traction models coming, six of which are a fit for my modelling location is riches beyond the dreams of avarice...)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
(34030 Watersmeet @ 23 Mar 2018, 10:33) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>pre grouping, LSWR T3 (or indeed any of the Adams 4-4-0s) LNWR lady of the Lake single, Midland spinner 4-2-2. If Rapido can do a Stirling single then these should be possible as well!
I could write a list a yard long of extremely attractive pre-group designs worthy of a model, including the lovely MR outside frame 0-6-0 that Richard identifies. It is pleasing to see that the RTR manufacturers are picking up on this, and there are subjects aplenty to keep a dozen manufacturers busy as long as there are customers willing to punt the money...

On which subject and specific to the Stirling single: the volume to be produced is relatively small, perhaps smaller than the NRM hoped for? There was insufficient demand from the pre-orders to justify tooling the old Sturrock tender with which this loco was for so long paired, so only the regular Stirling pattern tender with which the locos operated when in regular service is to be produced. That indicates to me that the volume case for many of these lovely subjects may be 'slender'.

I hope that the demand holds up enough that we see a good many more oldies. Another particularly deserving one in the NRM is the very lovely SECR D class 4-4-0. Elegance in abundance, and a very successful design that resulted in a series of successful 4-4-0s for the SECR and SR, and that went on in service practically to the end of steam. I was a little surprised - and pleased as an enthusiast for all things Doncaster GNR - that the NRM went with the single ahead of this loco TBH.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
(Allegheny1600 @ 23 Mar 2018, 13:59) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Brunel's broad gauge The only problem is, what scale? Then, what gauge - something as good as 21mm gauge in 3mm scale?...
Seen a couple of exhibition layouts built on this basis, and very good too. Great project for someone who wants to escape the common herd (like me!) using OO.

I have a distant recollection of some 'in development' work at an exhibition, of S scale (1/64) with true scale track and wheel standards for BBG, which looked like O gauge, with the impact this brings. Very nice indeed for the 'airy' locomotive frames, yet allowing enough internal volume to get can motor drive lines developed for 4mm fully concealed.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
(Ray Sadler @ 23 Mar 2018, 20:49) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>J67/J68/J69 - must have been hundreds built originally...
And examples can carry versions of GER blue and LNER green, and they were allocated hundreds of miles from their home patch. A good example from the long list of pre-group designs worthy of a model.

I was surprised (and grateful) that Hornby produced the J50 as their first truly all-new 0-6-0T in decades, with the J67 - 69 group going begging; and honestly believe Bachmann would have done far better tooling this loco family rather then repeating the J72. Why compete against a very large number of models available cheaply s/h, when for much the same investment you can offer something never before available in OO RTR?
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
My E4 is in the queue for works attention, going to get a new motor and modern fold up gearbox. It was the penultimate w/m kit I constructed during my first phase of railway modelling, from the just released Stephen Poole kit. The worst w/m loco kit I have ever encountered: the boiler halves as supplied left a 4mm wide void inside so not a chance of a motor going in there, and a massive amount of excavation required. One tender side was both bent and blistered. I requested replacements and got a not very pleasing answer, but eventually new boiler halves arrived with a 10mm wide void as supplied, and a good tender side. Not entirely surprised that this maker didn't trade that long...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
(34030 Watersmeet @ 28 Mar 2018, 12:25) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...Interesting that there is a big interest in pre grouping locos.
Fairly inevitable if people want to add new classes of loco models to their layouts, or collections. There are not that many grouping and later steam classes without a RTR OO model, and none that are of any great significance. I now have all the significant grouping and later steam classes appropriate to my layout setting, but only half the the varied collection of appropriate pre-group designs, some of which I have produced by kits or adaptions. The GNR condition O2 from Heljan is awaited, and the announced N7 0-6-2T from Oxford is a very welcome item to run alongside my one good kit build, but I could easily add the N1 and N5 0-6-2T which I have not yet built. Other welcome tank engines would be A5, J67, J69, and I would probably buy a RTR C12 to supplement my kit build. Then in tender locos there's all of J4, J17 and J20, and I would not refuse E4, J6 and J19 if they emerged RTR to supplement my own efforts. Missing among the larger tender engines is the B16, the NER's one 'all line' engine contribution into the BR period, and the K2, neither of which I have got around to yet.

So there it is, fourteen pre-group classes with no OO RTR models ever available, that would suit this modeller's 20 mile long section. There are some others that would tempt me too...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
I knew we had an old thread on this subject!

Of the various wants, Hornby have supplied / are listing a great chunk of LNER big engine completion: A2/2 and A2/3 released; (not quite the A2/1 that K was after, but you never know they might complete the set of A2 parts) W1 in water tube and conventional boiler forms, P2 in the much better streamlined form, still to come. (There's really only the P1 and U1 left to do in the mightiness stakes, fill your boots Hornby!)

LNWR Precedent would be good...

I suspect that the SECR D class 4-4-0 will appear before too long, as the C and H have been very popular...
Good picks there, the D available and the Precedent expected soon.

...Interesting that there is a big interest in pre grouping locos.
Oxford Rail have clearly spotted this, four loco releases now and all pregroup designs. The N7s are good, and while the loudest call for an NER 0-6-0 was for the J21, I feel their choice of the J26/J27 was a good one as these were typical of the mineral engine species of 0-6-0, thus a little different from the selection of larger wheeled mixed traffic 0-6-0's already on sale. (If I were placing a bet on the likely maker of an early Midland or LNWR 0-6-0, it would be Oxford: as they have yet to produce anything from the companies that finished in the LMS group.)

And real progress for Scotland, the very handsome J36 from Hornby and imminently the CR 812 class from Rails/Bachmann. Might this trigger a couple more releases? There's an abundance of very handsome candidates such as the NBR atlantic tanks mentioned previously, CR 0-4-4T's and the 4-4-0s of both these companies, which were in service to near the end of steam.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
A good chance you haven't missed out on this model, it's by Dapol for both Locomotion (NRM) and Rails of Sheffield, there are likely to be further issues. Locomotion specifically have been offering repeats of most of their locomotive commissions starting with the first, the prototype Deltic; so if they see there is continuing demand for this model in its SECR finery (I am guessing this might be the one you would like) worth calling them...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
...As far as Scottish 4-6-0s go though, the most versatile, numerous and long lived of them, and consequently the one most likely to sell in significant numbers as a model, would be the Pickersgill 60 class.
I would guess that a model manufacturer would consider the pre-group LMS constituent's 4-6-0 prospects from an all- LMS perspective, where the 400 odd LNWR 4-6-0s of the 19" and PoW classes easily outnumber all the others combined. With early extinctions for all of them under BR, which are going to garner the most sales from the pre-grouping and LMS period interest?

(From an eye-candy perspective, any of the Scottish 4-6-0's over the Crewed and Horwich 4-6-0 classes: perhaps that weights the likely choice differently?)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
In my opinion we are now in the 'zone of opportunity' for models of pre-group traction, because most of the significant grouping and later loco designs are available. If that's accepted, then the next question is how long the demand holds up against the inevitably steadily rising prices (a move away from dependence on China may ameliorate the latter, Roco are trying Vietnam). I am optimistic about the demand side for at least another decade: there are still plenty of folks yet to start drawing final salary pensions who were young when model railway was a major hobby and might just think of model railway, round 2. So all being well some of these retired folk looking for an interest that can be pursued when the weather outside is frightful, will maintain the grey pound spend on model railway purchases out beyond 2030.

Then there's hope that the two 'current standard' models of Scottish 0-6-0 locos (alright, the CR specimen isn't here just yet!) will push that particular door open, and the typically good looking products of St Rollox and Cowlairs will get more attention from manufacturers. I'd love a D34 even though it doesn't belong in the KX area, to run alongside the equally inappropriate J36 Hornby supplied, and the similar charms of a CR 4-4-0 would likely appeal to many. And both companies have attractive and long lived tank engines to offer, mentioned up thread. We must BELIEVE...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
I'll keep my fingers crossed and make sure I'm extra nice and helpful to the fiscal management...
Then again,if it is the SECR no 737 you want, then look here:
Maximum effort on the good conduct toward the holder of the purse strings?

... as for suggested RTR models, how about a Highland Railway Jones' Goods?
Got to be in with a chance, while there must be plenty that remember it while operating in preservation. (What it really needs is a group in Scotland to build the next member of the class. Strikes me as a practical prospect, because it's the right power class for much current preservation operation.)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
...V2 ...of course that is another model rather overdue...
Never mind all the excitement over the Brush type 4, it's the long overdue Bachmann V2 I too am most interested in from this manufacturer's announced products list. This has been extensively previewed, and was fully tooled for production at least a year ago, and looks very good. It has been a long wait for an accurate model of a V2 to roar along with 50+ wagons of fully fitted freight.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
I got hold of a Model trains 2021 copy recently and in it it declares that the J39 replacement project by Bachmann has been terminated ...
I suspect that may be a lesson learned from renewing the J72, which I reckoned a mistake on two counts:
Near 50 years worth of decent looking s/h J72 models at a low price, suppressing new sales;
Several LNER 0-6-0T yet to see a RTR OO model, the J67/69 group the obvious opportunity.

It's the easiest job in the world to shuck the drive out of a Bachmann J11, and stuff it into the J39 body: externally improving the latter to whatever standard is required, while about the task of cutting the small amount of extra interior clearance the substitute mechanism requires. (The J11 wheelbase and wheel diameter is within an inch of that of the J39 in reality, you need 'micrometer vision' to spot the deviation on a 4mm model; were you so gifted your choice would be a kit mechanism built to P4 standards.) I am so lazy, the brake and sanding gear is left as on the J11, it's underframe detail, and 'representatively present' is 95% of the way there for my taste. YMMV.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
All new tooling of the ubiquitous Black 5 and 8F would seem sensible, the Black 5 in particular has almost no provision for the many variations inflicted on this design. Scope for a competitor to milk Hornby's cash cows?

Going back a bit ref 'Gresley was right'
Gresley's Doncaster team was so very right when it came to the essentials of the pacific design. All the successful subsequent UK pacifics are heavily influenced by that lead, and Thompson was ill advised to discard so much that was well proven, and thereby quite unnecessarily introduced weaknesses in the frame in consequence. And very quickly after Thompson's retirement Pepp proved with the A1 and A2, that Thompson's programme of independent valve gear for each cylinder was fully possible within the established frame layout. So, a false step. (The established process of developments of pre-group classes that continued under Thompson was sensible; in particular the B16/3 and O4/8 and O1 built on what had gone before. As for the B1, it supplies very funny reading in the BR exchange trials, as various commentators try to understand how the significantly more expensive Belpaire firebox taper boilered religion failed to deliver the expected superior performance.)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
You can also see the influence of Gresley in the Caledonian 956 class with its conjugated valve gear (Gresley and Pickersgill knew each other, both being prominent members of the wartime Association of Railway Locomotive Engineers Standard Locomotive Committee). The cylinder dimensions, boiler pressure and grate area of the 956 class were more or less the same as Gresley's 2-6-0s and both used three cylinder propulsion with a derived valve gear for the inside cylinder.

The 956 class were majestic looking locomotives but, unfortunately, the performance of the GNR engines was not replicated.......
Quite what was fundamentally amiss with the design has never been resolved, and the ill advised tinkering with valve gear did nothing to discover it. Draughting at the grate and ashpan end of the boiler is the usual prime suspect.

[FICTION ALERT] Then again, let's imagine that it had been a real success, capable of matching Gresley's K3 and Raven's B16 designs (either of which could have been used as the standard heavy mixed traffic class for the new LNER). Then they would have been deprecated really rapidly by the Derby-Horwich axis: we're not having something better than any of our efforts left standing... [/FICTION ALERT]
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,257 Posts
... I can't imagine there being any likelihood of a Glasgow & South Western Railway locomotive ever being available as RTR.
Contra: grounds for optimism.
As the pool of Big Four and later steam designs without RTR OO models shrinks, the net must be cast wider if completely new subjects are to be offered as models.
Wholly or largely neglected pre-grouping companies have really started to get a look in over the past decade: CR, GCR, GER, GNR, LBSCR, LNWR, L&Y, NBR, NER, SECR.
Commercial competition is still expanding to raid the RTR OO customer's wallet.
Scotland has some of the best railway modelling potential of any part of the UK: lovely scenery, shared running rights between companies, as far away from Brunel's great blunders as it is possible to get without exposure to seawater, to name but three.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top