Hornby announce the ex SECR / SR / BR(s) Wainwright H Class 0-4-4 tank as part of their 2017 range

[Mr chapman]

I think that's not quite correct.Pre war / pre 1948 modellers are well catered for.Recall Hornby's recent Silver A4 releases,Bachmann's Drecctor D11 in GCR livery,Locomotion's L&Y tanks,Ivatt Atlantics in GNR and LNER livery with Stirling Singles to come from Rapido.Now from Hornby we have Claud Hamilton in Apple Green.What more do you want ?

 

Please define "senior" btw.

Typo! Not just for more "senior" modellers. Politely pointing out you don't need to be in your 70's to be interested in grouping era trains. That list you gave is a nice selection of models. But of no real use to an early southern man. I'm not some model fascist that goes around spouting that the rtr boys should produce my wish list and nothing else. But the odd matching engine and train for 1920-30 wouldn't go amiss! That's a nice silver A4 on you list. I assume the coaches are on the way? And the stock for the Atlantic, Stirling single etc...

 

I enjoy building kits and am lucky enough to have the time to do it. But good lord some of the flack rtr stock gets is hilarious! The dukedog for example. I was reading comments about the coal load being the wrong shape! The REMOVABLE coal load! A slightly misplaced detail and some members act like Mr Bachmann has just popped round to bang your wife At least you have the rtr stock to moan about!

 

To me ready to run is about buying a complete train. Very easy I you like the transition era onwards. Not so easy if your modelling 1920-35.

[shunny]

At last a Scottish 0-4-4! Well for a few months during the war according to Hornby's press release!

 

But I will take an SR version to add to the other fantastic SR models from the past few years, very pleased with my recent Wartime S15 from Hornby and I hope they use more metal to give it a bit more weight than the M7.

[Graham_Muz]

Hi Guys,

 

Whilst this is exciting news I must point out that the chimney on the CAD and EP seems wrong...it should taper gently inwards from its seating position on the smokebox and not be parallel all the way up...check the against the images of the prototype on the Hornby site.....someone mentioned the buffers also needed a closer look...these are all details that can be easily rectified now.

...

Being realistic this is not an EP but a Stereo 3D sample that can't cope 100% with such slight tapers and is done more to check fit of parts and check clearances etc.

With the respect to the buffers the comment earlier was I believe more about why they were so small in the prototype which has been replicated correctly on the model.

The full 1st EP from the tooling is yet to be done.

[Edwardian]

I think that's not quite correct.Pre war / pre 1948 modellers are well catered for.Recall Hornby's recent Silver A4 releases,Bachmann's Drecctor D11 in GCR livery,Locomotion's L&Y tanks,Ivatt Atlantics in GNR and LNER livery with Stirling Singles to come from Rapido.Now from Hornby we have Claud Hamilton in Apple Green.What more do you want ?

 

Please define "senior" btw.

 

I suspect we are getting seriously off topic, but, I think there is more to it than that.  It would be wrong to point to various pre-1948 releases and claim that they amounted to even the beginnings of adequate coverage of the Grouping or pre-Grouping scenes.

 

Everything flows from the single salient fact that Blue and Red Box only tool for the BR modeller.  For Grouping and pre-Grouping designs this allows manufacturers in most cases to livery the models back to the late 1930s with ease.  After that, it becomes a bit more hit and miss, and by the time you have arrived pre-WW1, there is very little.

 

This means that the available items represent patchy coverage to say the least.  One accurate LBSC tank, one accurate LSWR tank, one accurate SECR six-coupled goods, coaches announced relevant to only one of the foregoing, etc.  

 

In my non-pre-Grouping Ranter incarnation, I model the Great Western in 1935.  You would be amazed what an exotic choice even 1935 can be, compared with 1936, say, or 1938, let alone 1947 or the Nationalised scene. 

 

Until the incomparable Hornby Colletts came along, and by goodness they were a long time coming, there was not a single suitable passenger vehicle to modern RTR standards for a GW layout set in 1935 or earlier.  Even now, you cannot go south of 1928.

 

Hattons' "4800" has deliberately excluded tooling for the pre-War as built appearance, so even when some recent releases allow better representation of the GW in the Thirties, retrograde steps are still being quite consciously taken.

 

Hornby and Kernow decisions have denied Southern modellers pre 1936 and pre 1933 ex-LSW coaching sets respectively.  It is not merely pre-Groupers who are cut out of RTR LSWR coaches, but anyone who might want to try the first 10-13 years of the Southern.

 

Early Grouping is just as badly covered as pre-Grouping.  Once you go earlier than 1937/8, coverage shelves off very dramatically.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Edwardian

[Edwardian]

To me ready to run is about buying a complete train. Very easy I you like the transition era onwards. Not so easy if your modelling 1920-35.

 

Quite

[Ozexpatriate]

 

I suspect we are getting seriously off topic, ...

Yes.
 

Everything flows from the single salient fact that Blue and Red Box only tool for the BR modeller.  For Grouping and pre-Grouping designs this allows manufacturers in most cases to livery the models back to the late 1930s with ease.  After that, it becomes a bit more hit and miss, and by the time you have arrived pre-WW1, there is very little.
...
Early Grouping is just as badly covered as pre-Grouping.  Once you go earlier than 1937/8, coverage shelves off very dramatically.

I am reluctant to comment, and whilst I understand the point you are making and agree to some extent, in print the comment feels like a bit of an overstatement.

With respect to Graham's topic, perhaps he has some involvement here (like the Merchant Navy where serious attention to details that varied over time is definitely visible) perhaps the same may well be true for forthcoming models of the H Class, rather than a blanket assumption that Hornby will model the H Class 'as preserved' and simply paint it in different liveries.

Even if the forthcoming product is as simple as that, having pre-grouping and early-grouping liveries of a locomotive that didn't change *much* will satisfy a lot of enthusiasts.

 

There's no question that the late steam and transition era is today, the most commercially popular time period.

 

I am quite delighted by the number of people in the <55 age group who have posted here to say they model the steam era before 1947.  I too am of that number and as far as British outline steam is concerned the maxim that "people model what they remember" does not apply to this group. The continuing commercial success of models in pre-BR periods, coupled with contemporary demand for reasonable accuracy will continue to drive better and better, higher fidelity pre-BR models.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Ozexpatriate

[Oldddudders]

 

Hornby and Kernow decisions have denied Southern modellers pre 1936 and pre 1933 coaching sets respectively.  

 

 

I must be missing something. Most of Hornby's 59' Maunsells are pre-1936, aren't they? The early release BCKs are 1926. Southern made 10. Hornby offered 3 different numbers. Hardly a bad ratio.

[Edwardian]

I must be missing something. Most of Hornby's 59' Maunsells are pre-1936, aren't they? The early release BCKs are 1926. Southern made 10. Hornby offered 3 different numbers. Hardly a bad ratio.

 

Should have made it clear that I was referring to the ex-LSW stock.  The Maunsells are great, but I blinked and missed them!

[Edwardian]

 

Yes.

 

I am reluctant to comment, and whilst I understand the point you are making and agree to some extent, in print the comment feels like a bit of an overstatement.

 

With respect to Graham's topic, perhaps he has some involvement here (like the Merchant Navy where serious attention to details that varied over time is definitely visible) perhaps the same may well be true for forthcoming models of the H Class, rather than a blanket assumption that Hornby will model the H Class 'as preserved' and simply paint it in different liveries.

 

Even if the forthcoming product is as simple as that, having pre-grouping and early-grouping liveries of a locomotive that didn't change *much* will satisfy a lot of enthusiasts.

 

There's no question that the late steam and transition era is today, the most commercially popular time period.

 

I am quite delighted by the number of people in the <55 age group who have posted here to say they model the steam era before 1947.  I too am of that number and as far as British outline steam is concerned the maxim that "people model what they remember" does not apply to this group. The continuing commercial success of models in pre-BR periods, coupled with contemporary demand for reasonable accuracy will continue to drive better and better, higher fidelity pre-BR models.

 

You see, it might not be a popular sentiment in some quarters, but these were demonstrably true statements.

 

Where better to high-light an appetite for earlier periods to be better represented than in topics discussing wished-for or announced models that have the potential to do just that?

 

Think about the main reason why the late steam and transition era is the most commercially popular; it ain't going to last. 

 

The sub 55ers interested pre-1947 periods are the future of steam outline modelling, so, Oi, Red and Blue Box, stop ignoring us!

[GreenGiraffe22]

If I chose to model the Southern Railway of my era there'd be nothing running, Hornby could release a 'Southern on Stike' set with no power car.

 

Anyway, can't wait to add the H to my East Sussex layout

[Jon Horrocks]

Fantastic news but are we to presume this heralds a retirement of the trusty M7 from the Hornby range? I cant see two Southern 0-4-4s surviving alongside each other.

 

Did anyone also notice that the Engine Blog states at the end...

 

"whilst at the wonderful Bluebell Railway last year, we couldn’t resist taking some snaps of other pieces of railway history as well, but let’s save that for another time shall we?"

 

That's almost worthy of starting a new thread speculating on what else they had or have in mind but maybe that for another day. For now, I'm delighted with the announcement. Well done Hornby!

 

Ever hopeful. There's the three P class tanks, the O1, two U class, the North London Tank, Captain Baxter, the Q class and 84030 plus maybe a decent new A1/A1X..........

[JSpencer]

Many years ago I hadn’t quite grasped that and, wanting a Southern 0-6-0, opted for a Wainwright C because it was the most numerous. In all probability, by the time the Southern took over, the brass domes had been replaced by something cheaper. Nevertheless, I allowed myself the fantasy that a devoted Southern crew scraped the paint off the dome and polished up the brass underneath.

 

1573.jpg

In SECR days, as the C class were generally goods engines, the dooms were generally painted green like the rest of the loco. Unlike the H ANC D class that were intended for passenger work. This did not stop the bluebell having theirs polished though.

[Wheatley]

Edwardian, on 23 Sept 2016 - 13:53, said:

I don't call 1 tank engine and no coaches "spoilt"

That's one more tank engine and as many coaches as modellers of every Scottish pre-grouping company combined can currently get RTR. But then, seeing as they've long been used to modelling for themselves I expect they'd be very happy with the others you dismissed as well. Kit and scratch building leaves you with a lot of spare transfer sheets and pre-grouping paint.

[JSpencer]

Yes, a

 

A nice collection you could, perhaps spray a varnish to darken the Terrier to make it match a bit better with careful application. That or I guess weathering to hide the tonal difference, of course depends if you like weathered locos.

 

).

Personally I am not that bothered. Even the two Bachmann Cs have some differences. The Bluebell C being more a Satin finish while the simplified is Matt (you can see this in my photo, I even moved the light to try and avoid the shine on the bluebell C to no avail).

 

I like a good dose of weathering on some BR models, but not on these delightful pre-grouping colours.

 

Currently there are 7 SECR coloured locos in my collection

 

[Dunsignalling]

 

 

Hornby and Kernow decisions have denied Southern modellers pre 1936 and pre 1933 coaching sets respectively.  It is not merely pre-Groupers who are cut out of RTR LSWR coaches, but anyone who might want to try the first 10-13 years of the Southern.

 

Early Grouping is just as badly covered as pre-Grouping.  Once you go earlier than 1937/8, coverage shelves off very dramatically.

If you want pre-group coaches in pre-group/early group condition in r-t-r, I think it can be fairly argued that the LSWR is not the company to pick.

 

The reason is that, the Ironclads aside, relatively few survived in anything resembling their original condition past the mid-1930s and the r-t-r manufacturers, for good or ill, want the predictable "base load" of sales that survival of prototypes into BR ownership ensures.

 

In many cases, formerly steam-hauled stock was split up into modules of various sizes and reassembled into EMUs of completely different lengths on new underframes. Backdating models simply by "removing" the added steel sheeting over the original panelling just won't do it.

 

What Edwardian and others do to old Tri-ang clerestories frankly pales into insignificance compared to what the Southern Railway got up to, even if one ignores the greater excesses visited upon ex-SECR and ex-LBSCR vehicles on the Isle of Wight. 

 

So, forget the LSWR and be very careful with old GWR types as Swindon, too were not averse to modernizing old coaches, the difference apparently being (if photographs are a good guide) that their much-trumpeted myth of standardization was well and truly forgotten in the process.

 

So, what else is there? Quite a lot actually, though not much on the Southern. Bachmann have picked a type that does fit approx.1919-1959 but plenty have complained that they are too "new" so they can't really win, can they.

 

There must be others, though I'm not greatly familiar with how long older non-Southern stock lasted. I suspect quite a lot until 1955, a year marked by a big national clear-out of old locos and stock displaced by BR new-build, and rather less until the issuing of the notorious 30-year rule which would have done for whatever still survived.

 

It won't be easy, as the mid-1930s did constitute something of a watershed and a lot did change around then.

 

Sorry guys, but when the last of we BR-era types have been transferred to daisy erecting duties, denying the manufacturers' the "base load" of a dominant era, I reckon that such r-t-r models as do see the light of day will come in much smaller numbers at much higher unit prices. As now, many of those demanding them will baulk at stumping up the price of admission and/or not buy because "their" period is 1908 and the model is in 1912 condition.

 

When you no longer have BR steam and transition to snipe at, you'll start on each other.

 

John

 

.  

Edited September 24, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[47606odin]

no traction tyres please! weight not rubber! (it only needs to pull small trains)

Edited September 23, 2016 by 47606odin

[Mad Carew Too]

That's one more tank engine and as many coaches as modellers of every Scottish pre-grouping company combined can currently get RTR. But then, seeing as they've long been used to modelling for themselves I expect they'd be very happy with the others you dismissed as well. Kit and scratch building leaves you with a lot of spare transfer sheets and pre-grouping paint.

 

Do not make the mistake of assuming those who call for more RTR support do not also enjoy building for themselves; the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Also, Dunsignalling, I don't think anyone is having a go at Transition Era modellers.  Pre and early Groupers, as I see it, are not seeking to put BR modellers in the shade; we just want our place in the sun!

[The Bigbee Line]

I'm pleased it's coming. Central Section workings will now be studied for train formations. The Allhallows branch is another that showed some interesting trains. Good video clips on YouTube. I have a box with ratio coach sides and some cast white metal ends by ERG to make a SECR based push pull set. I need to start it now..,,,.

[Edwardian]

Well, passion soon leads to polemic, but, for my part, I don't have a 'downer' on the Transition Era.  I take great pleasure in viewing Transition Era layouts at exhibitions and in magazines - there is rarely a layout that does not offer some reward in return for studying it - though, it must be said, I have little choice because 90% + of steam-outline layouts do, indeed, appear to be Transition Era! 

 

I think we are intelligent enough not to fall prey to a binary approach whereby "I like A, so I must dislike B", or "if I support more of A, I must want less of B".  

 

No one is sniping.  I don't think defensiveness need creep in, John.  The Transition Era modeller has had it his own way to a great extent for a very long time now.  I think the Era's place in the hobby is pretty well established, don't you?  It therefore isn't necessary to resist calls for better coverage of earlier periods, though to us, it can sound as if, having got what you want, you are now intent upon pulling up the RTR ladder.

 

There is, though, absolutely no need for advocates of different periods to quarrel.  I do not see our aims and wishes as inimical to yours. I am not saying "don't tool for the BR modeller" - why would I? - simply "don't tool just for the BR modeller".  Why that statement should upset a Transition modeller, I am unsure.  

 

While I welcome this model, I am only too aware that, if the BR state of the loco had been materially different from its pre-Grouping condition, Hornby would have produced an "as preserved", rather than accurate, pre-Grouping liveried model. I hope that this class, like the M7, is one of the relatively rare examples of a model that we can use to represent  a pre-Grouping locomotive.  I welcome it on that basis. 

[Dunsignalling]

Well, passion soon leads to polemic, but, for my part, I don't have a 'downer' on the Transition Era.  I take great pleasure in viewing Transition Era layouts at exhibitions and in magazines - there is rarely a layout that does not offer some reward in return for studying it - though, it must be said, I have little choice because 90% + of steam-outline layouts do, indeed, appear to be Transition Era! 

 

I think we are intelligent enough not to fall prey to a binary approach whereby "I like A, so I must dislike B", or "if I support more of A, I must want less of B".  

 

No one is sniping.  I don't think defensiveness need creep in, John.  The Transition Era modeller has had it his own way to a great extent for a very long time now.  I think the Era's place in the hobby is pretty well established, don't you?  It therefore isn't necessary to resist calls for better coverage of earlier periods, though to us, it can sound as if, having got what you want, you are now intent upon pulling up the RTR ladder.

 

There is, though, absolutely no need for advocates of different periods to quarrel.  I do not see our aims and wishes as inimical to yours. I am not saying "don't tool for the BR modeller" - why would I? - simply "don't tool just for the BR modeller".  Why that statement should upset a Transition modeller, I am unsure.  

 

While I welcome this model, I am only too aware that, if the BR state of the loco had been materially different from its pre-Grouping condition, Hornby would have produced an "as preserved", rather than accurate, pre-Grouping liveried model. I hope that this class, like the M7, is one of the relatively rare examples of a model that we can use to represent  a pre-Grouping locomotive.  I welcome it on that basis. 

This is going to sound like doom and gloom, but this is how I think things will pan out:

 

Rightly or wrongly, the manufacturers regard pre-grouping and, increasingly grouping era models as a poor bet. There is probably good reason for the latter; given that, when I began in the hobby, a high proportion of layouts were set in the 1930s and were created by modellers who had been around to experience the real thing. Those days are gone and it could be that the manufacturers, having decided that old is bad, think that older is worse. The BR steam and transition eras now form the backbone of the hobby in the same way and will decline in the same way.

 

So, the demographic has moved and will continue to do so. However, the 'baby boomers' who fill a big chunk of the current scene were "infected" with railway enthusiasm in disproportionately larger numbers than earlier generations or subsequent ones back in the 1950s and early 60s..

 

What proportion of "us" are into railway modelling as a result of that? Would we have got here, in the same numbers, by other means? If not, there will be a decline in overall participation as this population bulge works its way out of both the hobby and the general population. This doesn't/won't only affect hobbies, it impacts heavily on almost every part of the overall economy. Everything will look much different in twenty years from how it does now and it is inevitable that businesses will re-balance their activities to serve changed demands. That, almost certainly, won't include producing model trains in the volumes we are accustomed to. 

 

The present smaller participants are likely to become the industry norm, with the involvement of companies like Hornby moving closer to that. The current big era will become another niche alongside your own but there is no reason to expect surge in r-t-r models portraying any other to compensate for its decline. Your slice of cake may remain the same size but the cake itself will be smaller. You will feel more equal but not in a way you currently imagine.  

 

The industry is presently "making hay while the sun shines" by making products primarily aimed at a retired clientele on better pensions than up-coming generations will receive.

 

What happens next is not altogether certain, but I reckon the r-t-r boom days have maybe a decade-or-so left in them and we all know what follows a boom.

 

Sorry! Way  

 

John

Edited September 24, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[phil gollin]

.

 

Absolutely nothing to do with the wonderful Hornby announcement of an H-Class loco for 2017, however, I would note there have been many "pre-grouping" releases recently.

 

Of course, that has been in 009, not OO - but there is plenty of scope for "pre-grouping" modelling, only with added character.

 

.

[JSpencer]

Getting back on topic, is it me or do you think Hornby are being too restrictive on themselves doing just 4 versions in the first year?

 

If we look at the small players, they don,t hesitate doing 6 or more and I do feel it would be easy to add additional liveries.

[Oldddudders]

Getting back on topic, is it me or do you think Hornby are being too restrictive on themselves doing just 4 versions in the first year?

If we look at the small players, they don,t hesitate doing 6 or more and I do feel it would be easy to add additional liveries.

I have quoted previously the new model of motor car, for which the super-dooper boy-racer version was announced but not available at product launch. When asked why, the manufacturer simply pointed out that they didn't want to let off all their fireworks at once. It would seem that the bigger players are able to plan consecutive runs of the same model, so don't need to issue all popular liveries the first time round. And you and I might well buy a model from the first release, and then another from the 2018 range that has a livery even closer to our heart. I sense that the multiple-version models, like the USA tank currently making people happy, tend to be commissions from the new breed of small enterprises. Probably they need to make their money over a shorter time to justify the hefty initial investment.

[Mod4]

Thank you for bringing it back on topic please can we keep it that way.

[Dunsignalling]

Getting back on topic, is it me or do you think Hornby are being too restrictive on themselves doing just 4 versions in the first year?

 

If we look at the small players, they don,t hesitate doing 6 or more and I do feel it would be easy to add additional liveries.

I'd think Hornby just want the model to form part of their range for a longer period.

 

Most of the smaller players work in a different way and don't have a need for something to put in next year's catalogue.

 

John