Combe Martin

Sorry Phil, but I wasn't expecting an answer so quickly.

Well when your the Boss, your never on holiday. Now, a few answers to your comments/paragraphs, sorry I cant seem to place them within your text without eventually loosing the lot, so I've had to put them here. I wasn't thinking of just a couple of small bits of underframe detail and I did say 'If', and if you look at a couple of pictures in the Hornby thread you'll throw up you hands in horror when you see what I'm referring to. I'm sorry I cant seem to get them inserted here even though they're JPG files. To see what I mean .. Go to 'Forums', then 'Product and Trade Area', then 'Hornby', Page 1 and a bit up from the bottom, a topic called 'A Plea for Accurate Milk Tanks', go to Page 1 and a bit up from the bottom, a couple of pictures from BROSSARD. They are his 'enhancements' in brass to a couple of Dapol O gauge LMS milk tankers, look at the pictures of the underframe underside, what I'm getting at is if its OO gauge will we be able to see all this from the track level side on view ? . I'm guessing that a GWR underframe would be similarly complicated, but much harder to assemble in the smaller OO gauge, and you surely cant model all this as part of the floor moulding ?. I'm not suggesting that the external frame detail is left off. Regarding the existing 2 RTR models. The reason they are not good enough is because the external details on the side of the underframe are just wrong ! On the Hornby model the brake lever is the wrong shape and dosn't connect with the V hanger, the brake shoes don't line up with the wheels and are attached to the bottom of the spring dampers, and the end tank supports are attached to the top of the underframe whereas they should be attached to the front of the buffer beam. On the tank body there are no half tank support straps. To be fair to Hornby, they did inherit this model from Lima and they modified the brake lever, just not enough. The Dapol model has a wrong shape brake lever and the V hanger is in the wrong position, the spring dampers are aligned with the wheel treads and support the brake shoes. There are no brake cylinders or other underframe bits. The tank body has thick wrap round straps that go all the way round the body as part of its moulding rather than finishing at the underframe edge. It has no number so is difficult to tell what diagram (if any) its based on. Its just generic. It came from the original Hornby Dublo/Wren range. We would like something thats a lot better. As far as rivet patterns go, these are on the underframe edge so are small and difficult to see, but when I compare pictures and leaving aside maybe the very early ones and maybe the later BR built ones, the GWR ones all look the same to me. I'm not suggesting making loads of different diagrams, just one Unigate and one Express dairy. And, I do accept that they'll be fiddly to make and that would be 'costed in', I've agonised over how to modify my Hornby and Dapol ones using etched brass bits from Rumney Models and it's not easy. If you look at all the different kind of OO Gauge railway models, steam locos, diesel locos, loads of coaches, tons of wagons, vans, brake vans, bogie parcels vehicles, there are good quality accurate models available of everything now, except for milk tankers. Have a nice holiday, and dont forget your still at work !.

I think you'r missing the point. Rapidoandy has said that the biggest part of the production costs is the assembly, and that a full fat (my description not his) model would be sold at £40 - £45 and at that price not enough would be sold, so he wouldn't make one. However, a model that is sold at £32 would sell enough, so he would make one. So, given that the assembly is the biggest part of the production cost, I've been suggesting that to lower it , that underframe details that cant be seen unless the model is turned upside down or eyesight scanned right down at rail level be left off. Given that this part of the assembly can be quite intricate and is all done by hand and is therefore time consuming it follows that reducing the assembly time must lower the production cost. If this is enough to sell the model at approx. £32 and so he makes them, and we get one, rather than not get one, then that makes sense to me. I'm not talking about going back to the bad old days of chassis detail, just leave off what you cant see ! And, if you don't like them like that then you don't have to buy one, because your not going to get one the full fat way !

Because you need to speed match the 2 locos used in the consist in advance otherwise they'll both go at different speeds causing a derailment. Speed matching is Ok if its always just between the same 2 locos, but on Templecombe it would have to be between the several tank locos used as station pilots and the tender express locos used on the passenger trains. Then there's matching between the same station pilots and locos used on goods trains. So instead they have two operators each using a controller to operate one of the locos at the front or back. Even then, sometimes you can see driving wheels slipping.

I was there on Friday and Saturday and the problem started on Friday and wasn't fixed till Saturday.

Well I found plenty of bargains with the traders selling Hornby models. One selling new unused Ex 'Business Closed' stock. I got a new unused Hornby Std class 4 (and I've already got one at home and it's the smoothest running mechanism I've ever come across) for £80. I saw one in the Hornby shop today for double that. Then another trader selling new unused coaches, Hornby new type BR maroon Stanier corridor stock (the big box shifters havn't had them for ages and neither have Hornby), I got a corridor Brake 2nd for £28.

To be fair to Templecombe, they had an intermittent problem for a long while that caused the whole setup to 'Play Up' with unpredictable results including 'short circuits', sometimes shutting the whole lot off, and usually being fixed temporarily by doing what I would call 'a Power Off, Power On, Reset'. Which seemed to fix things for a while until it went haywire again. I believe it was fixed eventually by replacing the main cable to the Powercab handset. Templecombe is also complicated to operate because of the (for northbound trains) piloting of trains back to the off scene station platform or (for southbound trains) piloting them out of the off scene station platform back to beyond the junction by the signal box before they could continue their journey south. This needs 2 operators alone, one for each loco at each end the train, this cant be done with a 'DCC Consist'. Then there's another operator controlling all other train movements so that's 3 operators, then one controlling the points and signals via a PC, that's 4, one fiddling with stock in the fiddle yard, that's 5, and finally one having a rest having been on their feet for a couple of hours at a time, that's 6. They do operate a rota shunting the jobs around to give everyone a rest.. They are all well past retirement after all.

I cant see that what I've suggested is a 'feature set' that suits me, in fact what I've suggested is something that aligns with your second sentance. I suggested the following (which is to keep costs down) ... Produce one common chassis either ex-GWR or ex-LMS (by far the biggest two chassis types) and therefore with the greatest spread. For example, the GWR chassis is the same whether it has an Express Dairy tanker top or United Dairies/Unigate top, and the same for the LMS chassis. Produce two tanker tops, one Express Dairies and the other Unigate. I personally wouldn't buy an Express Dairy tanker because they wern't seen at Bailey Gate but I'm sure anyone building an Express Dairy ... dairy ... probably wouldnt buy a Unigate tanker. Anyone modelling a main line where tanker 'collection' trains ran would I imagine buy both. I think I'm right in saying that some of the 'collection' trains collected both dairies tankers. To add some variation to a multi dairy tanker train, and only because the Express Dairy tankers (from what I can see) all had a central top filler with central side ladder, produce the Unigate tanker with a ladder/side platform/frame and top filler at one end. Now I come to what some may consider to be the most contentious suggestion, ie leave off the detail that cant be seen unless the model is turned upside down or eye scanned at track level. Rapidoandy has pointed out that with all the details and associated complex production and assembly costs, that the selling price would have to be too high which would hamper the sales figures. So he therefore dosnt want to make one. So my suggestion was if that's the case, why not leave off what you cant see, and keep the price lower to a level where it would sell. This is not me trying to steer things my way, its a suggestion of how maybe a model can be produced. It seems to me that maybe the choice is either ... design a 'full fat' model which is too expensive to make therefore they don't make it and we don't get one, or leave off what you cant see to make it cheaper and we do get one. At the prices rapidoandy was suggesting I would buy them either way so it makes no difference to me, but I can see that others may not. So, this is not me trying to steer things my way, but a way of actually getting one. One other point not made before ... by the late 50's/early 60's the various dairies had been merged into the 'big 2', ie Unigate and Express Dairies which had their own liveries. But the smaller dairies that merged into them each had their own livery, so there is scope (if producing for example a Unigate tanker that was previously part of a smaller dairies fleet) to additionally produce the same model but with a 'back dated' livery'. As I said at the begining, there is nothing in this that is steering it my way.

Go on the train, dont forget the m25 is closed before the M3 junction.

That's a good point, I had been thinking that these only had a modelling life up to maybe the mid 70's (for milk), but engineers use extends that into the 'modern era'

I understand your arguments, but I would add the following. There needs to be at least 2 tankers, one Unigate and one Express Dairies. The tank tops (what's above the chassis) are very different, but they can be on the same chassis, no need to tool up 2 different ones. That could be either an ex-GWR or ex-LMS. Do one and leave the other to someone else. The chassis detail underneath, I would be quite happy if what I cant see without turning it upside down is left off, equally If I cant see it without getting my eyes down to track level then leave that off, though I don't know if that's possible. Certainly I know there is plenty underneath. On the Hornby thread about this, a very skilled modeller has shown pictures of the underside of his tankers, lots of brass bits all soldered up, very nice but could some of it be left out. I think his might have been mods to an O gauge Dapol tanker. Tankers from the two dairies didnt meet at the dairy, the tank fillers on top had different fittings so for example you would'nt see an Express Dairy tanker at a Unigate Dairy, yes I know there are the odd pictures, maybe a marshalling error somewhere), but they could be on the same train up to a London discharge point. So it depends on what you'r modelling, personally I'm modelling Bailey Gate on the Somerset & Dorset which has a big Unigate Dairy, so I wouldnt buy an Express Dairy tanker, but others will model the main line and have a mixed train. I would though buy both Ex-GWR and Ex-LMS underframed tankers (and several of each), both were seen at Bailey Gate. And my wife would be very pleased because she could buy me more for Xmas ! What I would say is that because Express Dairy tankers always had a central ladder, then make a Unigate tanker with a frame/side platform at one end. These can also be turned round so they look different. Right, I'm off to Bristol for the show now, 2 days and not coming back till tomorrow evening. I'm off to see my friend on here Tinglytim with his Templecombe Lower layout. I'll re-join the argument on Sunday morning probably.

Yes, in BR days a tanker from any of the fleets could wander, whether many did or not is another matter, but certainly tankers from all of the ex big 4 could go anywhere. I'm not qualified to comment on how much of the Unigate fleet when used on the WR was ex GWR as I wasnt there, though it dosnt sound unreasonable, but I can say that of the ex-GWR/BR fleet (BR built tankers were the GWR design) about 70% were Unigate and about 30% Express Dairies. With the ex-LMS fleet the proportions were almost the same. What I've been getting at when referring to (for example) an ex GWR vehicle is that you could produce just one ex-GWR/BR underframe and fit it with several different Unigate 'tank tops' and several different diagram Express Dairy 'tank tops', though these all look very similar.

So sounds like an excuse not to do one. I did suggest that to avoid duplication someone could announce that they were going to do a tanker on one particular companies underframe without saying which tanker, they could even say they were going to do a particular dairies tanker, for example they could announce they were doing a Unigate tanker on an ex GW underframe. That would still leave about 19 diagrams they could pick from. That would leave about 8 diagrams that someone else could pick from of an Express Dairy tanker on an ex GW underframe. Then of course someone else could announce a tanker on a ex LMS underframe, or even an ex SR one (though there were less of them).

Yes, this was an attempt to widen the request/discussion to several manufacturers. A while back I put a topic about this on the Hornby thread hoping that the other manufacturers would also read it as there isn't a general 'wish list' place 'from anyone' on here, but that gradually faded. There is only the official 'wishlist' organised by Brian and his Poll Team, but that dosnt provide a forum for background/discussion and 'reasons why' from the 'punters'. Lots of the manufacturers have a 'what do you want from XYZ' topic where everyone puts their 'oar' in but there's no common place. It was prompted this morning by Bachmann's latest announcement of what they're producing in the coming months, and reading through it, and theres a lot ... well nothing there. I had hoped that Bachmann would 'pickup the challenge', afterall they're well established in the UK now and must have plenty of expert contacts, but nothing yet. All someone has to do is announce that 'we're going to produce milk tanks on a, for example an LMS chassis. The chassis are the same, its just what's above them that's different. They don't need to identify which diagram, there's plenty. If any one else was inclined to also do a milk tank that lets them decide on doing a GW/BR chassis one, or even a Southern or LNER one, and so avoid potential duplication..

Mmmm ... the only problem with the Southern ones is that compared to the 'big two' there were a 'fraction' of them, and even fewer of the LNER ones.