Oxford Rail Wish List?

[Dunsignalling]

 

 

That little lot would keep Oxford, Hornby and Bachmann busy for at least twenty years even if none of them were to address your somewhat arbitrary exclusion of the companies that (presumably) don't interest you, including most of the Scottish ones; or produce anything at all outside your criteria.

 

The Brighton was, due to its loading gauge, probably more parochial than most of them, leading to many locomotives receiving modified cabs and boiler fittings in the 1920s and '30s and the working lives of many coaches being truncated as they were of no use anywhere else after the 3rd rail went in. .........

 

Five locomotives from each of the twenty-odd companies grouped in 1923, let alone the many that amalgamated prior to that; in round numbers, call it a hundred.

 

That, would represent many more new types than Hornby and Bachmann combined have introduced in the past two decades.

 

Aiming high is one thing but, sorry, that is pure pie-in-the sky that goes well beyond your self-professed megalomania and in no way describes a world that "could be".

 

If your cause is to be taken seriously, I'd venture that this does more harm than good by illustrating the "too much choice" argument rather than breaking it down.

 

 

John 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[dube]

I can't see them producing early loco types that were gone by the grouping, wish they would though, I think some Pre grouping wagons 15' 16' Glos. 1907 types 10 ton coal wagons they could do loads of liveries pre grouping brake vans and for later era we still need a decent midland van, 5 plank open wagon and a NER 20 ton wooden hopper would be nice

[Dunsignalling]

I can't see them producing early loco types that were gone by the grouping, wish they would though, I think some Pre grouping wagons 15' 16' Glos. 1907 types 10 ton coal wagons they could do loads of liveries pre grouping brake vans and for later era we still need a decent midland van, 5 plank open wagon and a NER 20 ton wooden hopper would be nice

All those wagons (brake vans excepted) are or have been (prior to the evident demise of the ex-Slater's 4mm range), available in kit form.  

 

Whole side transfers are available for the PO types so all you have to do is whack 'em together and paint a base coat.

 

J

[Edwardian]

John, first, thank you for taking the time to look through the post and to respond.  It might be, that you perhaps have not read the post quite fully, or, dare I say, taken due note of the caveats it contains, though, of course, you are free not to embrace the premise.  I don't blame you, it's an absurdly long post, but I think on reflection that most of the negative objections you raise are foreseen and dealt with in the post. 

 

No, please be assured it is not my personal wish list.  Neither the choice of locomotive in all instances nor the choice of companies mirror my personal preferences.  Practicality (or, rather, an attempt at it), not personal preference, was the guide. 

 

And, yes, it is arbitrary and, yes, it is imperfect, all of which is freely acknowledged in my original post, but, the proposal does represent a reasonably practical course of action. 

 

The proposal is precisely designed to take account of your two, I'm afraid to say inconsistent, objections (a) that it is unfair to exclude so many companies, but (b ) having included them, that it is unrealistic to expect to model 5 locomotives from every UK company.  This is precisely why the choice is limited, otherwise everyone just drowns in too much potential choice with no more actual models; the alternative to a plan for joined-up releases, however incomplete and imperfect, is that nothing gets made beyond the odd random eye-candy release, as at present. That maybe what you want, of course, but I would hope not.

 

Between the current raft of RTR manufacturers, Bachmann, Hornby, Dapol, Heljan, Oxford, DJH, OO Works, and the commissioning powers of Hattons, Kernow, Locomotion, 50 locomotives and a minimum of coaches is, I suspect, not 20 years work, but, if it is, it is.  We would be in a better position in 20 years' time, or at any point between now and then, than we would be if the current random release "programme" of scattered locomotive releases and never enough to run with them were allowed to continue its drifting course.  

 

The basic proposal is for joined-up releases and the achievement of some basic coverage of pre-Grouping prototypes.  To get hung up on the details is absurd, as the decision as to what is made, if anything, is neither yours nor mine.  Mine was merely an attempt to scope out the general proposition and to illustrate by way of example.  Even this has proved unsatisfactory to your mind as I have suggested, for the sake of argument, that the "parochial" LBSC might be a better bet than the Great North of Scotland.  The constructive answer, surely, is to show that I am wrong in that, admittedly working, assumption, because more people want 5 GNOSR locomotive releases than want any further LBSC releases.  That may well be the case, for all I know.

 

The overarching point, I suggest, is this, however; the fact that such a programme of releases, despite its ambition, represents a difficult and imperfect choice is not, in my view, a reason to do nothing.  It may be so in your view, however, and I entirely respect that.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Edwardian

[Dunsignalling]

John, you perhaps have not read the post fully, or, dare I say, taken due note of the caveats, though, of course, you are free not to embrace the premise.  I don't blame you, it's an absurdly long post, but I think on reflection that most of the negative objections you raise are foreseen and dealt with in the post.  No, it is not my personal wish list.  Neither the choice of locomotive in all instances nor the choice of companies mirror my personal preferences.  Practically, not personal preference, was the guide.  Yes, it is arbitrary and, yes, it is imperfect, all of which is freely acknowledged, but it represents a practical course of action.  It is precisely designed to take account of your two, inconsistent, objections (a) that it is unfair to exclude so many companies, but ( B) having included them, it is unrealistic to expect to model 5 locomotives from every company.  This is precisely why the choice is limited, otherwise everyone just drowns in too much potential choice with no more actual models; the alternative to a plan for joined-up releases, however incomplete and imperfect, is that nothing gets made beyond the odd random eye-candy release, as at present. That maybe what you want, of course, but I suspect not.

 

The fact that it is a hard and imperfect choice is not, in my view, a reason to do nothing.  It may be in your view, however, and I entirely respect that.

 

No hard feelings, I'm sure.

My feeling is that, despite editing the categories down from around 100 to 50 locos, suitable for your putative branch-line/secondary scenario, the choice remains just too wide. It is further exacerbated by the fact that, for many of the companies/categories, there will be a number of locos to choose from.

 

If (for example) Oxford/Hornby/Bachmann/Heljan/Dapol/DJM each picked one loco for next year from the available categories/companies, the odds would be very much against getting two that go together without them colluding in a way that would breach competition law.

 

Like it or not, "eye candy" models will probably remain the commonest way for pre-group models to emerge for the foreseeable future. Your desired 'Gladstone' will probably be one. Perhaps the way forward, at least in the short/medium term, is to lobby for more everyday prototypes to "go with" whatever does get produced. Obvious one is an SECR 'H' or 'D'  to follow the 'C' or a J-whatever to go with the Q6.

 

That inevitably leads to narrow coverage if you want any depth but, when I began modelling there was not much of either for most of us. Back in the 1960s, it was impossible to populate even a modest layout with a representative selection of locos from any one BR region without recourse to kit-building. My own r-t-r choices comprised 'Winston Churchill' and the L1 4-4-0 (Tri-ang) and 'Barnstaple' and the R1 tank (Hornby Dublo). I think Trix did a Brighton E2 but I've never seen one to this day. 

 

The quantity, quality, and coverage of locomotives and stock correct for BR(s) Western Section layouts today would have exceeded my wildest dreams back then. 

 

A few predictions:

• Like all of us, you will get some of what you want. Most of the low-hanging fruit from later times has already been plucked and manufacturers must dig deeper.
• There will always be a bias toward prototypes that lasted longest to give the greatest choice of liveries, that's commercial necessity.
• There will always be irritating gaps that can only be filled by "Plausible Substitution" (Rule 1) or kit building, that's life and it applies to all of us.

And a bit of advice:

• If something comes out that is nearly what you want, quibble over the niceties by all means but, if you want follow-ups on the same theme; BUY ONE. 
• If you want to be taken notice of, check out how the LMS Society went about it back in the day, it worked for them.

 

Regards

 

John

Edited February 19, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[No Decorum]

John, first, thank you for taking the time to look through the post and to respond.  It might be, that you perhaps have not read the post quite fully, or, dare I say, taken due note of the caveats it contains, though, of course, you are free not to embrace the premise.  I don't blame you, it's an absurdly long post, but I think on reflection that most of the negative objections you raise are foreseen and dealt with in the post. 

 

No, please be assured it is not my personal wish list.  Neither the choice of locomotive in all instances nor the choice of companies mirror my personal preferences.  Practicality (or, rather, an attempt at it), not personal preference, was the guide. 

 

And, yes, it is arbitrary and, yes, it is imperfect, all of which is freely acknowledged in my original post, but, the proposal does represent a reasonably practical course of action. 

 

The proposal is precisely designed to take account of your two, I'm afraid to say inconsistent, objections (a) that it is unfair to exclude so many companies, but (b ) having included them, that it is unrealistic to expect to model 5 locomotives from every UK company.  This is precisely why the choice is limited, otherwise everyone just drowns in too much potential choice with no more actual models; the alternative to a plan for joined-up releases, however incomplete and imperfect, is that nothing gets made beyond the odd random eye-candy release, as at present. That maybe what you want, of course, but I would hope not.

 

Between the current raft of RTR manufacturers, Bachmann, Hornby, Dapol, Heljan, Oxford, DJH, OO Works, and the commissioning powers of Hattons, Kernow, Locomotion, 50 locomotives and a minimum of coaches is, I suspect, not 20 years work, but, if it is, it is.  We would be in a better position in 20 years' time, or at any point between now and then, than we would be if the current random release "programme" of scattered locomotive releases and never enough to run with them were allowed to continue its drifting course.  

 

The basic proposal is for joined-up releases and the achievement of some basic coverage of pre-Grouping prototypes.  To get hung up on the details is absurd, as the decision as to what is made, if anything, is neither yours nor mine.  Mine was merely an attempt to scope out the general proposition and to illustrate by way of example.  Even this has proved unsatisfactory to your mind as I have suggested, for the sake of argument, that the "parochial" LBSC might be a better bet than the Great North of Scotland.  The constructive answer, surely, is to show that I am wrong in that, admittedly working, assumption, because more people want 5 GNOSR locomotive releases than want any further LBSC releases.  That may well be the case, for all I know.

 

The overarching point, I suggest, is this, however; the fact that such a programme of releases, despite its ambition, represents a difficult and imperfect choice is not, in my view, a reason to do nothing.  It may be so in your view, however, and I entirely respect that.

Many good points made with a lovely Edwardian courtesy.

[Poor Old Bruce]

Showing my Midland Railway bias, it would be nice to see a Deeley 0-4-0 Dock Tank. I know there were only ten of them and there were differences between the two batches of five each but if manufacturers can think it worth while making models of the GWR 1361 and 1366 classes the why not?

 

Another example of a class of ten is the Fowler 0-6-0 Dock Tank.

 

The Johnson 0-4-4T has already been mentioned.

 

It would also be nice if someone could pick up the idea of the Kirtley 0-6-0 Goods Engine which Austrains seem to have dropped.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Edwardian, I salute you sir.  Precise, erudite, thoughtful and unarguable on rational grounds.  Are you a QC,perhaps? 

 

The rebuttals will take the form of emotional rather than rational responses, thus missing your essential point.

[J C Fenton]

Edwardian, you do have a certain way with words.  More erudition, courtesy and patience than I possess seem to be required to enter this debate, but I am very glad that you have and I agree.  Well said!

 

If the RTR manufacturers could achieve half of your "minimum" in twice the time, there would at least be some "joined-up" releases.  I'm sure the hobby would benefit hugely.  I think it would help to secure its future, too.

[9402 Fredrick]

A GER N7 0-6-2T, Caledonian 812 0-6-0, Midland 1252 1P 0-4-4T, SE&CR P Class 0-6-0T, SE&CR H Class 0-4-4T.

[Dunsignalling]

Edwardian, I salute you sir.  Precise, erudite, thoughtful and unarguable on rational grounds.  Are you a QC,perhaps? 

 

The rebuttals will take the form of emotional rather than rational responses, thus missing your essential point.

I agree with Edwardian wholeheartedly on an emotional level but, whilst he sums up admirably where he would like to see the process lead in the fullness of time, it is somewhat lacking in (rational) focus regarding what pre-group locos and stock might/should be produced in the short term.

 

If the aim is to get more pre-group models produced more quickly, we need to provide a rationale behind specific proposals; the "why" as well as the "what". The annual  Wish-list Poll is currently the only mechanism that provides any real guidance in this sense. 

 

Up to now, pre-group prototypes have generally been chosen because they survived (relatively unaltered) through the group era and into BR days; with very good reason. Getting the manufacturers to narrow their scope even slightly (say) to prototypes that survived in small numbers into nationalization but were withdrawn without receiving BR livery won't be easy. They will have to be convinced either that [1] abandoning the popular 1950s - 1960s era will not represent the "kiss-of-death" for overall sales or [2] such models can be sold at premium prices sufficient to counterbalance the reduced volume. Neither scenario can be relied upon so the current formula is likely to persist.

 

Special releases, like the Stirling Single, costing getting on for double the price of many other locos will sell to keen collectors with the wherewithal but, if Tri-ang were around today, does anyone imagine that 'Lord of the Isles' would see the light of day as a mainstream release?

 

Hornby, Bachmann, et al are still testing the temperature of the pre-group water and sales of those models that are released have a significant influence on what does or does not follow. Bachmann's SECR 592 sold out in no time flat and changes hands for 500% of the original RRP but the plentiful LBSC-liveried Bachmann E4s (not as preserved) currently being offered at very substantial discounts suggest they overcorrected the numbers somewhat with the newer model. Their next such release will, no doubt, reflect these contrasting experiences.

 

I suspect that more purchasers buy pre-group models for their appearance and/or because of the existence of a preserved example than through a modelling interest in either the company or the era portrayed. If that is the case, such buyers may well prefer the next release to be from a different company rather than a another loco in a similar livery.

 

There are many questions and not (yet) enough definite answers. That will ensure that whilst the r-t-r manufacturers will undoubtedly continue to produce pre-group models that dovetail into their main strategy, they are unlikely to become as adventurous, or progress as logically, as Edwardian would desire.

 

John   

Edited February 19, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[BG John]

Surely Oxford have already got the ideal product, apart from the lack of daylight under the boiler! How straightforward is it to produce the Adams Radial in earlier conditions? Would they lose sales, or gain them, by producing a genuine LSWR version, rather than the preserved in LSWR livery version they're actually making?

[scottrains29]

Did you miss the announcement from Hornby that they made new models of the Class 43 power cars for release in 2007/2008?

Perhaps you are not aware that many duplicate super detailed models exist. Heljan, Vitrains, Bachmann have all produced a detailed 47. That's just one example from many. Oxford rail, like any business, is out to make a profit. If they think they can make a good return on a class 43 then do you really think they care if it is a duplicate. If they think a class 43 won't produce a profit they'll not produce it, simples! Yes, Hornby have a reasonable 43 in in their range, but look at the crazy prices some of them go for on eBay. It's an extremely popular model in high demand! Plus the Hornby ones have many livery errors, they even got the very popular Virgin livery wrong! I think you may have also missed the fact that Oxford said they are not going to produce any random model and the only engine I can think of that goes with hst coaches is ...the class 43. Going by your logic the only loco to go with the loco hauled mk3 is the class 87 (not a bad thing tbh). The 47,67, 86 and 90 are taken. Even the 08/09 shunter has been done twice!, shock.

 

I find the Hornby HST sets are just a huge load of compromises. Take the Virgin HST: livery mistakes on the power car and TGS, some coaches are ex Lima, some coaches have tinted windows some don't. They've used at least two different shades of blue for the GNER ones. Popular coaches like the TRUB are missing. If you're happy with compromise after compromise then fine but I believe there is a demand for a highly detailed, all matching set. If demand is there then there is no reason why two (or more) manufacturers can't produce the same model.

[MGR Hooper!]

Going by your logic the only loco to go with the loco hauled mk3 is the class 87 (not a bad thing tbh). The 47,67, 86 and 90 are taken.

In what world is the Class 86 taken?? The Heljan effort was a complete waste... Absolute waste! If you have a list of complaints against the Hornby HST, it's surprising that you think the Class 86 from Heljan is considered as today's standard.

 

Most of your complaints are regarding livery errors, the model is actually splendid whereas the Class 86 is on a whole incorrect.

[Metr0Land]

In what world is the Class 86 taken?? The Heljan effort was a complete waste... Absolute waste! If you have a list of complaints against the Hornby HST, it's surprising that you think the Class 86 from Heljan is considered as today's standard.

 

Most of your complaints are regarding livery errors, the model is actually splendid whereas the Class 86 is on a whole incorrect.

 

Indeed, and the old Hornby Class 90 is crying out to be replaced.   The Blue Team have said they're doing one but judging from comments on Bachmann thread they've barely started?

[Dunsignalling]

Surely Oxford have already got the ideal product, apart from the lack of daylight under the boiler! How straightforward is it to produce the Adams Radial in earlier conditions? Would they lose sales, or gain them, by producing a genuine LSWR version, rather than the preserved in LSWR livery version they're actually making?

It largely depends how early you want to go.

 

The preserved livery is a bit conjectural but the loco itself is in more-or-less typical Drummond era condition but for reversion to the earlier stovepipe chimney.

 

488 was sold to the EKR without the Urie modifications applied to the other two long-term survivors and BR stuffed the most authentic (oldest) bits back onto 30583 before selling it to the Bluebell.

 

The hefty frame repairs (not visible externally) were done during EKR ownership. They were evidently good enough to dissuade BR from renewing them. 

 

John

Edited February 19, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Edwardian]

EDIT:  While responding to John's Post No. 60, 5 replies intervened

 

John, these are, indeed, many of the obstacles that would need to be overcome, correctly and fairly identified if I may say so. 

 

It is not denied that there would need to be a change in direction on the part of manufacturers in order for this to happen, and we cannot bank on this, a point that is also fully accepted.

 

One point arising from your last post is this: The aim is not merely to encourage production of more pre-Grouping prototypes.  That would not in itself offer much of an improvement.  The point is the concept of a joined-up release programme.  This was a conclusion that seemed to emerge from debate on the neighbouring Oxford Rail Wagons thread.  The need is to produce locomotives with something they can haul and with a minimum of other models necessary to run a layout based upon a given company. 

 

Coincidentally, I note Fredrick above wishes for "A GER N7 0-6-2T, Caledonian 812 0-6-0, Midland 1252 1P 0-4-4T, SE&CR P Class 0-6-0T, SE&CR H Class 0-4-4T".  Allowing for the fact that there will often be more than one strong candidate for each category of locomotive (for instance, if you had just 1 GER large passenger tank made, would it be an N7 or an M15, say?), Fredrick's choices are probably all ones that would be made on the 'minimum locomotives' scheme proposed.  The trick, taking the SECR example, is to make sure that, not only is a P Class and an H Class manufactured, but so too is one of the elegant 4-4-0s, and that Bachmann re-introduce the C Class in full livery and get around to the Birdcage stock already announced. 

 

Put like that, this does not seem such a massive hill to climb, it's just that the releases concerned are joined-up!  This co-ordinated approach means that, suddenly, SECR and former SECR Lines are now a practical and accessible subject.  The whole becomes greater than the sum of the releases (and, given a few years, we can hear the cry of "oh no, not another SECR Kentish branch line terminus!".

 

Replicate that approach with even three or four companies, where some of the necessary locomotive types are already in production or announced (e.g. LBSC), and you have already achieved a very different landscape and opened up the pre-Grouping and Grouping eras to a new market.

 

And, yes, a Lord of the Isles to modern standards would sell!

Edited February 19, 2016 by Edwardian

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

And, yes, a Lord of the Isles to modern standards would sell!

 

I'd certainly buy one....

 

 

87 024 that is...

[ianLMS]

I think they should try and engage in 3mm/ft (TT) R-T-R loco's, track, rolling stock and scenic items and lead the way!!! Resurrect it from the ashes and with proper managed marketing, I think they would be very successful. I think there is a large gap in the market here and would tempt many people away from fiddly N/2mm and common OO/4mm, HO/3.5mm etc and all the anomalies that go with it.  If there were R-T-R loco's in that scale with decent correct scale track to go with it, I'd be all over it!

[The Stationmaster]

I think they should try and engage in 3mm/ft (TT) R-T-R loco's, track, rolling stock and scenic items and lead the way!!! Resurrect it from the ashes and with proper managed marketing, I think they would be very successful. I think there is a large gap in the market here and would tempt many people away from fiddly N/2mm and common OO/4mm, HO/3.5mm etc and all the anomalies that go with it.  If there were R-T-R loco's in that scale with decent correct scale track to go with it, I'd be all over it!

 

Hornby have done a lot of research and canvassing about going back into TT but as that took place several years ago it looks as if it didn't come to anything despite going to those modelling in that scale/gauge and direct to various clubs and societies.

 

In the past Hornby's reps were always regarded as a good feed back system of market information about what people were asking for in model shops and of course they did the questionnaire at exhibitions as well so they obviously worked off a number of sources and not just wishlist polls.  Things might of course work differently in the brave new Hornby?   Both Bachmann and Hornby maintain a series of folders on things they have done a bit of research on and have in mind for future production and others might do the same for all I  know while the NRM tends to consult people they know and whose opinions they value about what they might think of tackling for the future.

 

OI know how some commissioners work and it's far from hit & miss  as it usually involves a long term plan - for example Kernow seem very much to have a Cornish/West of England theme running through their commissions although Hattons is seemingly based on other ideas (but they do have good market information from their customers of course).  Heljan appear to be guided by wishlists but i know nothing about their internal workings so that is little more than a guess while Oxford appear to be doing something similar plus, no doubt, getting feedback from retailers and maybe others.

 

But in all of this kind of thing wagons, especially traditional 4-wheelers, no doubt come some way down the food chain - research & development costs are really little different (and could be more) than similar early stage work for a loco or coach although tooling and production costs are clearly less.  But that also means that the earnings and amount of return from a 4 wheel wagon per unit sold will be considerably less than a loco or coach - the only way to get the income up is to either cut corners in development and tooling or hope to sell many more.  The latter is probably best(?) achieved by reducing the price but at some p oint there must be a balance between sales gained and income lost due to a reduced price and the risks could well be higher if insufficient numbers are sold.  Which is why folk keep on making new locos.

[Porcy Mane]

I bought some DCC Concepts Swan Neck lamp posts for my Southern Railway Padstow platform to replace the dummy cast metal ones that droop over time. 

 

Metal Lamp posts that droop? That's worrying. Over what period? Did they droop over a longer time span that it takes pitch to drip?

http://www.thetenthwatch.com/

 

 

So we do need decent RTR LSWR/SR scale lamps that replicate the gas lamps of the past.

 

Yes, YES! 

 

Hey Dubya,

 

Looks like we caught ourselves a fishy.  

Translation: "Tim, we may have found ourselves a new recruit that is sympathetic to our cause".  Requests for Scale street furniture to be sent to manufactures. Maybe time to start a lobby group. Will the trickle turn into a flood?

 

P

Doing his best to make lamposts trendy. (Not bendy)

[MGR Hooper!]

Indeed, and the old Hornby Class 90 is crying out to be replaced.   The Blue Team have said they're doing one but judging from comments on Bachmann thread they've barely started?

I don't mind anyone doing it. Hornby's model can be well detailed with the PH Designs kit. Sadly in 2 years we've heard nothing about the Bachmann Class 90. I'd be happy detailing a Hornby one. I wish Bachmann did a Class 86 instead of the Class 85. Honestly the Class 86 is more well-known and wide-spread in time. No clue why they did the Class 85. I never even knew it existed until Bachmann did it.

 

We need a nice Class 86, Class 87, Class 90 (hoping it turns up), Class 91 and Class 92.

[Dunsignalling]

EDIT:  While responding to John's Post No. 60, 5 replies intervened

 

John, these are, indeed, many of the obstacles that would need to be overcome, correctly and fairly identified if I may say so. 

 

It is not denied that there would need to be a change in direction on the part of manufacturers in order for this to happen, and we cannot bank on this, a point that is also fully accepted.

 

One point arising from your last post is this: The aim is not merely to encourage production of more pre-Grouping prototypes.  That would not in itself offer much of an improvement.  The point is the concept of a joined-up release programme.  This was a conclusion that seemed to emerge from debate on the neighbouring Oxford Rail Wagons thread.  The need is to produce locomotives with something they can haul and with a minimum of other models necessary to run a layout based upon a given company. 

 

Coincidentally, I note Fredrick above wishes for "A GER N7 0-6-2T, Caledonian 812 0-6-0, Midland 1252 1P 0-4-4T, SE&CR P Class 0-6-0T, SE&CR H Class 0-4-4T".  Allowing for the fact that there will often be more than one strong candidate for each category of locomotive (for instance, if you had just 1 GER large passenger tank made, would it be an N7 or an M15, say?), Fredrick's choices are probably all ones that would be made on the 'minimum locomotives' scheme proposed.  The trick, taking the SECR example, is to make sure that, not only is a P Class and an H Class manufactured, but so too is one of the elegant 4-4-0s, and that Bachmann re-introduce the C Class in full livery and get around to the Birdcage stock already announced. 

 

Put like that, this does not seem such a massive hill to climb, it's just that the releases concerned are joined-up!  This co-ordinated approach means that, suddenly, SECR and former SECR Lines are now a practical and accessible subject.  The whole becomes greater than the sum of the releases (and, given a few years, we can hear the cry of "oh no, not another SECR Kentish branch line terminus!".

 

Replicate that approach with even three or four companies, where some of the necessary locomotive types are already in production or announced (e.g. LBSC), and you have already achieved a very different landscape and opened up the pre-Grouping and Grouping eras to a new market.

 

And, yes, a Lord of the Isles to modern standards would sell!

I agree that the SECR, once the Birdcage coaches eventually arrive, provides a better basis for expanding the range of pre-group models than most. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 'H', in particular, fairly soon thereafter. 

 

That said, Bachmann's current pricing policy suggests that, in "Full Monty" SECR livery (like 592), the RRP is likely to exceed that of the E4, at probably £120+ and the 'D' might be even trickier. The D11/2 and Dukedog have been around for some time with an RRP of £140, a 'D' in SR or BR livery (released, maybe, in 2019) could be expected to carry (at best) a similar RRP with the elaborate SECR livery probably commanding a premium of £10 or £15 on top.

 

Proper pre-group coaches present something of a conundrum which will not be solved until the Birdcages in SECR livery have been and gone. Nobody yet knows for certain how many people who buy the locos just collect attractive pre-group locos compared to the number who have a real modelling interest and will want stock to add to them. These are probably going to cost in the region of £200 for a set of three and it remains to be seen how big the coalition of those willing and able to shell out that sort of sum will be.

 

Bachmann have not yet seen fit to announce suitable coaches to go with (for instance) their L&Y Radial tank and, if they ever do, it will be because the Birdcages have done well.

 

However one looks at it, I think the concept will have to be proved with one company first; three or four straight off would just be too risky commercially. Your hoped for landscape will only open up if and when the manufacturers consider it to be, at least potentially, as lucrative as what they are already doing. Poor sales or evidence of widespread price aversion could easily scupper it before it really got going; one flop could be fatal. They will never sell as many Hs as (for instance) A4s, however pretty they are. Lower volume equals higher prices and complex liveries require more printing passes with increased failure/reject rates so, like Hornby LNER teaks, the price goes up again.

 

My citing of 'Lord of the Isles' was carefully considered, I understand it was on the market for several years before it began to turn a profit and the coaches, which sold in their thousands as conversion fodder, always made more money than the loco.

 

That couldn't be contemplated these days so you'd be looking at a pre-order scenario like the one for the Stirling Single. Much pre-group will have to be done this way before it becomes mainstream IMHO but it won't be alone in this - more specialised prototypes from all periods will be in the same boat.

 

John

[frobisher]

No clue why they did the Class 85. I never even knew it existed until Bachmann did it.

Very shrewd move by Bachmann; It was the most numerous of the early electrics and hence remained in service longer than the others (81-84). It was also a fresh model (the 81 already having been done (twice?) back in the day, which would be the next "target" of the early electrics) so no cries of duplication etc. Presumably they'd heard that the Heljan 86 was in the works so side stepped that as a prototype though duplication there might have been a good thing in hindsight.

 

It could also legitimately run alongside steam hauling rakes of maroon MK1s.

 

We need a nice Class 86, Class 87, Class 90 (hoping it turns up), Class 91 and Class 92.

I'd put even money on an 87 after the 90 turns up from Bachmann, and an outside chance of an 86 after that. The 91 I'm not sure we're going to see anytime soon as it really needs the whole kit and caboodle with regards the MK4 carriages to be done also. The 92 I'd keep a weather eye on Dapol for, if the N gauge model ever progresses then an 00 version would make some sense.

[MGR Hooper!]

Very shrewd move by Bachmann; It was the most numerous of the early electrics and hence remained in service longer than the others (81-84). It was also a fresh model (the 81 already having been done (twice?) back in the day, which would be the next "target" of the early electrics) so no cries of duplication etc. Presumably they'd heard that the Heljan 86 was in the works so side stepped that as a prototype though duplication there might have been a good thing in hindsight.

 

It could also legitimately run alongside steam hauling rakes of maroon MK1s.

 

 

I'd put even money on an 87 after the 90 turns up from Bachmann, and an outside chance of an 86 after that. The 91 I'm not sure we're going to see anytime soon as it really needs the whole kit and caboodle with regards the MK4 carriages to be done also. The 92 I'd keep a weather eye on Dapol for, if the N gauge model ever progresses then an 00 version would make some sense.

I have a feeling a Class 91 will appear in the next two years... Hornby got a jolly ole thrashing for it recently I hope they see the need.