Minority Report: The Wish-List Poll & the Pre-Grouper

[Edwardian]

Hello Edwardian

 

The Dean 2021/2181 0-6-0PT seems to be missing from the lists. Or am I just not seeing it?

 

Brian

 

Yes, it's missing, which underscores the problem of attempting to offer a wish-lister anything like a comprehensive choice for earlier periods!

 

As you no doubt know, there were multitudinous saddle tank classes and sub classes, with both Wolverhampton and Swindon designs.

 

Within these there is much variation, not least as the saddle-tank shape/design was not so much class specific as boiler type specific.

 

I wanted to include both an inside and outside framed larger saddle tank class and the 1076 seemed an obvious choice for the latter; it's full of character and gives you a pannier option prior to WW1. 

 

For the inside frame option, however, you could quite justifiably choose another class over the 1854.

 

For a smaller saddle tank, I chose the 850 as a particularly attractive and characterful prototype, and likely a popular one.  For me it was a case of plumping for 1 small saddle tank design.  The 2021 is essentially a larger version of the 850 (though still a small/small-wheeled class) and I felt it sensible to limit the selection to a single small saddle tank class. 

 

Looked at another way, there is a kit of the 850 (SE Finecast?), so to avoid duplication, one might prefer a RTR 2120.   Russell has a good 'as built' portrait as I recall, so that would be 1898-9 or so, with dome towards the front,  and it, too would undoubtedly make a very attractive RTR model.

[BMacdermott]

Hello BG John

 

They were built as Saddle Tanks from 1897, so seem to fit the original criteria fairly well as they run into rebuilds.

 

Note to Edwardian: Are the Steam Railmotors omitted for any reason?

 

Brian

[NHY 581]

My thoughts, for what they are worth, revolve around the Midland Railway.

 

Bachmann has already introduced a number of locomotives which could be backdated ( they have already released a Midland spec 4F, Ramsbottom safety valves but no tail rod covers)

 

A round topped 1F springs to mind along with a backdated 3F and compound. Now is it viable to produce revised tooling for new bodies remains to be seen.

 

I have rattled on elsewhere for a Johnson 0.4.4T and would add a 2P 4.4.0 to that.

 

Could the 1F form the basis of a 2F 0.6.0?

 

Holy grail would be a Johnson Spinner and a small boilered Johnson 4.4.0....gorgeous.

 

Lets not forget some Midland Clerestories/ non corridor stock to bounce behind as well and as for a Kirtley 0.6.0 (mooted by someone but gone quiet now)

 

Most of the above have multiple livery options including S&DJR Blue/black.....

 

The biggest one for me is the 0.4.4T ( a big gap in the roster )and this probably,aside from the 2P, has the biggest commercial opportunity.

 

I wish....

 

Rob

[Edwardian]

Hello BG John

 

They were built as Saddle Tanks from 1897, so seem to fit the original criteria fairly well as they run into rebuilds.

 

Note to Edwardian: Are the Steam Railmotors omitted for any reason?

 

Brian

 

Thanks, Brian.

 

My original list was a selection to illustrate the scale of the challenge!  It is up for debate and amendment, for sure.

 

No reason for excluding Railmotors, just neglected to do so, so there is a task that needs undertaking!

 

James

 

 

My thoughts, for what they are worth, revolve around the Midland Railway.

 

Bachmann has already introduced a number of locomotives which could be backdated ( they have already released a Midland spec 4F, Ramsbottom safety valves but no tail rod covers)

 

A round topped 1F springs to mind along with a backdated 3F and compound. Now is it viable to produce revised tooling for new bodies remains to be seen.

 

I have rattled on elsewhere for a Johnson 0.4.4T and would add a 2P 4.4.0 to that.

 

Could the 1F form the basis of a 2F 0.6.0?

 

Holy grail would be a Johnson Spinner and a small boilered Johnson 4.4.0....gorgeous.

 

Lets not forget some Midland Clerestories/ non corridor stock to bounce behind as well and as for a Kirtley 0.6.0 (mooted by someone but gone quiet now)

 

Most of the above have multiple livery options including S&DJR Blue/black.....

 

The biggest one for me is the 0.4.4T ( a big gap in the roster )and this probably,aside from the 2P, has the biggest commercial opportunity.

 

I wish....

 

Rob

 

All the more welcome for that, not least because I just don't have the information.

 

I would have thought a Kirtley 2-4-0 and 0-6-0, ditto Johnson plus a 4-4-0 and 'Spinner', the 1F(?) 0-6-0T and an 0-4-4T passenger tank for sure!

 

Where that would take you with dates, major variants, rebuilds etc to cover a given arbitrary period, say, c.1895 to Grouping(!), is beyond my meagre grasp of the subject.

 

Is there not another Bain Clerestory design, perhaps a bit more representative that the ones Ratio produce (which need modification for Midland condition?  Toplights?)

 

My knowledge of Midland train formations and typical diagrams in, say, the Edwardian period is zero.  I don't know what types would be the most useful/versatile.  

[NHY 581]

Thanks, Brian.

 

My original list was a selection to illustrate the scale of the challenge!  It is up for debate and amendment, for sure.

 

No reason for excluding Railmotors, just neglected to do so, so there is a task that needs undertaking!

 

James

 

 

 

 

All the more welcome for that, not least because I just don't have the information.

 

I would have thought a Kirtley 2-4-0 and 0-6-0, ditto Johnson plus a 4-4-0 and 'Spinner', the 1F(?) 0-6-0T and an 0-4-4T passenger tank for sure!

 

Where that would take you with dates, major variants, rebuilds etc to cover a given arbitrary period, say, c.1895 to Grouping(!), is beyond my meagre grasp of the subject.

With the possible exception of the Spinner, I would venture that,subject to livery variations, this would provide possibilities to model 1900ish to grouping ( and beyond given the delay in repaints !! ).

 

One of my 'projects ( pipe dreams) is a small urban Midland terminus packed with period features a la Farthing from the esteemed Mikkel...set during the First World War.

 

Loco wise it would need a couple of 0.4.4T, an 0.6.0T or two and say a Kirtley 0.6.0 tender jobbie with one of the new fangled 4F popping in.

 

Bu***r......this thread has sowed a bit of a seed......Where will it end!!

 

Rob.

[BG John]

Hello BG John

 

They were built as Saddle Tanks from 1897, so seem to fit the original criteria fairly well as they run into rebuilds.

 

Note to Edwardian: Are the Steam Railmotors omitted for any reason?

 

Brian

For my period, 1905, panniers are very rare. I'll be converting a Hornby 2721 pannier to an 1814 class, as they were fitted with panniers from 1904. The major change is to the bunker, with a few changes to the rest of it, like moving the front steps and probably a new smokebox door. I've got a saddle tank conversion to one to do too, but pretty much all that will be left almost as it is are the cab and footplate. Having an RTR loco with interchangeable panniers and saddle tank might help, but for classes that were scrapped in the late grouping and early nationalisation period, a saddle tank is probably the best option.

 

Kernow/DJM are supposed to be doing a railmotor, in all the liveries they carried. A matchboard sided one would be nice too though!

[billbedford]

Here's a thought, though. The Midland standardised on wheelbase and driving wheel size (with a small number of exceptions) for its 0-6-0s. There are RTR models of 3Fs and 4Fs, and various patterns of tender. A new body, and there you have a 2F. A new body with outside frames, and outside cranks on the axles, and you can have a 1F. How many modeller's have done this, or is everyone waiting for it to be mass produced?

 

 

The 2F boiler pitch is too low to fit a 3F chassis inside, nice try but no cigar...

[John_Miles]

The 1F wouldn't be suitable as a basis for a 2F. Different wheel spacings for a start and I think different length boiler, then there is the cab, etc, etc.

[Jol Wilkinson]

With the possible exception of the Spinner, I would venture that,subject to livery variations, this would provide possibilities to model 1900ish to grouping ( and beyond given the delay in repaints !! ).

 

One of my 'projects ( pipe dreams) is a small urban Midland terminus packed with period features a la Farthing from the esteemed Mikkel...set during the First World War.

 

Loco wise it would need a couple of 0.4.4T, an 0.6.0T or two and say a Kirtley 0.6.0 tender jobbie with one of the new fangled 4F popping in.

 

Bu***r......this thread has sowed a bit of a seed......Where will it end!!

 

Rob.

 

It'll have to start with getting the soldering iron out, methinks.

 

The kits you want exist AFAIK, but the RT versions may be a long time coming (if ever).

[justin1985]

As an aside, from a confirmed 2mm(/N) modeller who has never actually looked at the model in question in any great detail in the flesh ...

 

Why haven't Hornby released their J15 in GER livery at all? I saw mention that there was a low roof variant in the models they've already done, and I'm not aware of any other fundamental changes to the Y14 / J15 - no change in firebox type, no Gresley boiler etc. Only really changes in chimney types etc, which are presumably the easiest things to change on a moulding?

 

Surely there is enough market for at least a limited edition? I'd certainly buy one to sit on the shelf ...

 

Justin

[Edwardian]

As an aside, from a confirmed 2mm(/N) modeller who has never actually looked at the model in question in any great detail in the flesh ...

 

Why haven't Hornby released their J15 in GER livery at all? I saw mention that there was a low roof variant in the models they've already done, and I'm not aware of any other fundamental changes to the Y14 / J15 - no change in firebox type, no Gresley boiler etc. Only really changes in chimney types etc, which are presumably the easiest things to change on a moulding?

 

Surely there is enough market for at least a limited edition? I'd certainly buy one to sit on the shelf ...

 

Justin

 

Essentially because Red Box is uninterested in any tooling variations to suit pre-Grouping.  I believe there is a low cab version.

 

Essentially, for me, the interested would be in both one of the older, standard lots, used as goods engines (at my period (1905) I believe they would be in unlined black), plus one of the later batch, intended for mixed traffic duties, fitted with air-brakes and outshopped in lined ultramarine blue.  Both had the low cab (I think the raising was done by the LNER), but the cab side sheet cut-out had a different profile on the intermediate batch.  Again, I believe Hornby have produced both versions of the cab scoop.

 

It should be clear from this that it is well within Red Box's powers to produce pre-Grouping condition models, but that they just can't be bl**dy-well bothered.

[billbedford]

Essentially because Red Box is uninterested in any tooling variations to suit pre-Grouping.  I believe there is a low cab version.

 

 

I think you misrepresent the position here. It is much more likely that Hornby is not interested in producing models that are not expected reach their criteria for volume sales and profitability. 

[Edwardian]

I think you misrepresent the position here. It is much more likely that Hornby is not interested in producing models that are not expected reach their criteria for volume sales and profitability. 

 

I think not, as, from my position, you seem to be in agreement: Hornby is not interested, at present, in pre-Grouping precisely because Hornby is not interested in producing models that are not expected reach their criteria for volume sales and profitability.

 

In general Hornby will only tool for BR variants, thus typically allowing for late Grouping livery versions, because it believes that only interest from BR modellers will allow a model to reach their criteria for volume sales and profitability.

 

Why such an assessment should be thought a misrepresentation is unclear.

[Compound2632]

I would have thought a Kirtley 2-4-0 and 0-6-0, ditto Johnson plus a 4-4-0 and 'Spinner', the 1F(?) 0-6-0T and an 0-4-4T passenger tank for sure!

 

Where that would take you with dates, major variants, rebuilds etc to cover a given arbitrary period, say, c.1895 to Grouping(!), is beyond my meagre grasp of the subject.

 

Is there not another Bain Clerestory design, perhaps a bit more representative that the ones Ratio produce (which need modification for Midland condition?  Toplights?)

 

My knowledge of Midland train formations and typical diagrams in, say, the Edwardian period is zero.  I don't know what types would be the most useful/versatile.  

 

The face (almost literally) of Midland engines changed so completely between the beginning and end of Edward VII's reign that one could not hope to cover any engine in both periods with a single model.

 

Very late Midland (say c. 1920 - c. 1930 (!)) is relatively accessible thanks to the LMS' standardisation on Midland-derived designs - we have the 4F and 3F 0-6-0s, superheated compound, and standard 2P which just needs a little backdating to make a 483 Class 4-4-0. I can't off-hand find when the 1F 0-6-0Ts started getting belpaire boilers - possibly not in Midland days. The LMS standard 3F 0-6-0T would require quite a lot of work to produce its Midland antecedent, even in belpaire-boilered form. The 0-4-4Ts were perhaps the engines which changed least in appearance on gaining belpaire boilers - so I'll wish on...

 

The recently-deceased Mainline/Bachmann 57' panelled coaches, though of early LMS design, are close to late Midland elliptical-roofed carriages. The Clayton 48' square-panelled clerestories represented by the Ratio kits were very common on secondary services well into LMS days - unfortunately Ratio didn't do the two varieties of brake/luggage composite which would be the most useful vehicles. The replacement of the door toplights with ventilators (per the kits) had started in late Midland days. The Bain 48' arc-roof suburban carriages that are also the subject of Ratio kits are of types that were specific to the Manchester-Stockport-Cheadle services and to the Birmingham area (in fact the 4-compartment brake thirds were only found in Birmingham-Evesham 4-coach sets) but can pass for carriages built for the Sheffield, Nottingham, and London areas - but please not cut-and-shut for 19th century arc-roofed carriages - the panelling style is quite wrong - I wince. Finally (ho-ho) there's the final design of 20T brake van from Bachmann.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I think not, as, from my position, you seem to be in agreement: Hornby is not interested, at present, in pre-Grouping precisely because Hornby is not interested in producing models that are not expected reach their criteria for volume sales and profitability.

 

In general Hornby will only tool for BR variants, thus typically allowing for late Grouping livery versions, because it believes that only interest from BR modellers will allow a model to reach their criteria for volume sales and profitability.

 

Why such an assessment should be thought a misrepresentation is unclear.

You said " they just can't be bl**dy-well bothered".

 

​Bill offered an explanation that they might consider that it isn't commercially viable, which in their current financial position is quite understandable. They aren't the same thing at all and your statement implies a lack of intent, rather than a reasoned commercial stand point.

 

We often see people's criticise the RTR manufacturers when they don't  produce something they want/need for their individual requirements. They also seem to consider themselves better qualified at running the business, understanding the market, etc. (a bit like football fans). If a particular item/product is that important there are other ways to get what you want, but these require more effort than the average "keyboard warrior" modeller seems willing to expend.

 

While your objective of improving the availability of pre-group RTR models is laudable in support of those that can't/won't make their own models from the wide variety of kits available, I think you efforts are misguided. Just look at the selection of models currently and historically available, the rate of introduction of new - rather than revised models (invariably different liveries, etc.) -  and it appears that the consumer is usually happy to soak up whatever Hornby, Bachmann, etc.produce. The rate which genuine new models are introduced is evidence that they have limited budgets/capacity and that they will concentrate their efforts where it gets the biggest returns There are often moans about lack of suitable supporting stock for particular eras/areas, but in this RTR loco centric hobby locos provide more turnover, profit and PR than carriages and wagons. So I believe the likelihood of Hornby et al producing anything more than a few, easily researched pre-group locos is very low and matching paneled carriages in complex lined liveries is virtually nil.

[Mrkirtley800]

My thoughts, for what they are worth, revolve around the Midland Railway.

Bachmann has already introduced a number of locomotives which could be backdated ( they have already released a Midland spec 4F, Ramsbottom safety valves but no tail rod covers)

A round topped 1F springs to mind along with a backdated 3F and compound. Now is it viable to produce revised tooling for new bodies remains to be seen.

I have rattled on elsewhere for a Johnson 0.4.4T and would add a 2P 4.4.0 to that.

Could the 1F form the basis of a 2F 0.6.0?

Holy grail would be a Johnson Spinner and a small boilered Johnson 4.4.0....gorgeous.

Lets not forget some Midland Clerestories/ non corridor stock to bounce behind as well and as for a Kirtley 0.6.0 (mooted by someone but gone quiet now)

Most of the above have multiple livery options including S&DJR Blue/black.....

The biggest one for me is the 0.4.4T ( a big gap in the roster )and this probably,aside from the 2P, has the biggest commercial opportunity.

I wish....

Rob

Rob, I doubt you will have your wish with Hornby. So why not have a go yourself. Back in the 1950's when I became interested in the pre group scene in general, and the Midland in particular, there was not a lot of RTR even, so, if you wanted a balanced stud of engines there was no alternative to building it yourself.

Why not give it a go? An old friend of mine used to build his engines out of plastikard, so if you don't fancy sheet metal, plastic might be your answer. The hardest part of building a loco is making a start, but at least you are doing something. Many modellers don't bother to try and then moan about their favourite manufacturer not producing exactly what they want.

Derek

[justin1985]

I find it utterly incomprehensible that Hornby would think that an ultramarine GER J15(Y14) wouldn't sell. Surely the fact that other "pretty" pre-grouping livery locos like the Bachmann SECR C class have sold out quickly shows that there is a collector's market. Or perhaps the fact that Hornby insisted on pressing ahead with the duplicated LSWR Radial means they're basing their own pre-group sales performance on a diluted market?

 

Surely Bill is right that this must be a conscious commercial decision. If the tooling can accommodate a pre-group Y14 especially. It's fruitless to accuse them of wilful bias, but we can question the assumptions they're making. The kind of misinterpretation of sales figures based on a model that was subject to unusual competition, I postulated above, is exactly the kind of flawed decision making that unfortunately seems typical of British businesses run by accountants and MBAs.

[JCL]

There should be an accountant version of Godwins Law when talking about businesses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[Caley Jim]

Has this discussion not now run its course?

Jim

[ChrisN]

Has this discussion not now run its course?

Jim

 

I think you are right.  We began to list what people might buy in pre-grouping RTR.  I think I have listed my GWR and Cambrian likes so it is probably up to others to continue.

 

It has to be remembered that soe people for various reasons cannot make kits or scratchbuild so it is worth it to keep on waving the flag so that maybe, eventually there will be more RTR pre-group.

[Edwardian]

You said " they just can't be bl**dy-well bothered".

 

​Bill offered an explanation that they might consider that it isn't commercially viable, which in their current financial position is quite understandable. They aren't the same thing at all and your statement implies a lack of intent, rather than a reasoned commercial stand point.

 

We often see people's criticise the RTR manufacturers when they don't  produce something they want/need for their individual requirements. They also seem to consider themselves better qualified at running the business, understanding the market, etc. (a bit like football fans). If a particular item/product is that important there are other ways to get what you want, but these require more effort than the average "keyboard warrior" modeller seems willing to expend.

 

While your objective of improving the availability of pre-group RTR models is laudable in support of those that can't/won't make their own models from the wide variety of kits available, I think you efforts are misguided. Just look at the selection of models currently and historically available, the rate of introduction of new - rather than revised models (invariably different liveries, etc.) -  and it appears that the consumer is usually happy to soak up whatever Hornby, Bachmann, etc.produce. The rate which genuine new models are introduced is evidence that they have limited budgets/capacity and that they will concentrate their efforts where it gets the biggest returns There are often moans about lack of suitable supporting stock for particular eras/areas, but in this RTR loco centric hobby locos provide more turnover, profit and PR than carriages and wagons. So I believe the likelihood of Hornby et al producing anything more than a few, easily researched pre-group locos is very low and matching paneled carriages in complex lined liveries is virtually nil.

 

I think the point is that Red Box only thinks in terms of the low-hanging fruit that is the BR.  It could do more to promote interest in earlier periods, and, arguably, thus achieve greater longevity for its ranges, but it has clearly decided that, at present, it is not commercially a direction it needs or wants to go.  I find the supposed difference between my point and Mr Bedford's to be a distinction without a difference. 

[Talltim]

Bit confused about what needs changing to backdate the J15. Is it just the chimney? Is it a serperate part in the Hornby model?

If so it would seem that is would be very easy for Hornby to produce a nice brightly coloured loco that would sell well to the 'it's too pretty to resist' brigade, even if it was smallest production batch size. If there's more that would need changing then I can understand why they haven't

[billbedford]

Bit confused about what needs changing to backdate the J15. Is it just the chimney? Is it a serperate part in the Hornby model?

If so it would seem that is would be very easy for Hornby to produce a nice brightly coloured loco that would sell well to the 'it's too pretty to resist' brigade, even if it was smallest production batch size. If there's more that would need changing then I can understand why they haven't

 

 

For some value of 'sell well'. AIUI Bachmann has only made one batch, i.e. about 500 of each of the pre-grouping liveried locos.

[Talltim]

For some value of 'sell well'. AIUI Bachmann has only made one batch, i.e. about 500 of each of the pre-grouping liveried locos.

I got the impression that the green SECR C class sold out? That's the sort of batch size I was thinking of for 'selling well'.

However the SECR livery is complicated whereas the GER blue is pretty simple so I suppose it doesn't have that 'there's no way I could paint that' factor.