RTR North Eastern Railway Locomotives - A discussion.

[Fenman]

I think an ES1 might be a good left-field choice - NCIM candidate? And of course it’s been produced before by Hornby (or rather one of its predecessor companies, I think) - but decades ago.

 

I’ve got a Judith Edge ES1 and it makes for an utterly charming model - unlike anything in anyone’s current RTR catalogues, and exuding cuteness by the bucketload. Er ... if you see what I mean.

 

Paul

[sem34090]

Hornby? No ES1...

Triang? No ES1... ('Primary' Steeplecab Electric bears a slight resemblance to an EE Type 3B)

Hornby Dublo? Don't think so?

[Les1952]

I have the following ex-NER types running on my layout- ALL RTR....

 

Two J25s

a J26 with a second waiting chipping

two J27s with another waiting chipping

and a D20.

 

But then again I model in N.

Isn't it time the OO boys caught up?

 

Les

 

[JaymzHatstand]

There's a lot of mention of the Q6 as an RTR NER loco, though the only version that has thus far appeared is the post 1938 (I think) version with the later boiler.

 

I've got one which I have rolled back with a casting for the older dome, and a few other tweaks to make an older version. The boiler bands aren't quite right, but I can live with that.

 

The Hornby tooling would allow for this variation, as the parts break down suggests that variations were planned at the tooling stage. Fingers crossed!

 

A J27 would be a grand choice, especially as they lasted right to the end of NE steam, and there's one not far away from a return by all accounts.

 

Stock wise, I'd like to see the 20t hoppers, which in terms of size aren't too dissimilar to the LMS ones which appeared a few years ago.

 

For now though, i'm happy to build kits, slowly admittedly, and await future developments with anticipation!

 

Cheers

 

J

[Fenman]

Hornby? No ES1...

Triang? No ES1... ('Primary' Steeplecab Electric bears a slight resemblance to an EE Type 3B)

Hornby Dublo? Don't think so?

There’s one on display at the NRM.

 

Paul

[MarkC]

Some great ideas here - the argument "A5 or A8"? would probably go to the A5, I suspect, for 2 reasons. First, it would appeal to GCR area afficionados as well, (although they only appeared in the NER area after Grouping, of course), but secondly, getting the bogie arrangement to work whilst still getting the model to 'look right' would take some serious model engineering skills. This argument also works against the B16, H1, NER Atlantics, A7, the original A2 etc.

 

With the J27 having the same 8' x 8' 6" wheelbase as the Midland 0-6-0s, I'm surprised that Bachmann haven't yet offered one - the most expensive part, of R & D, the chassis, is surely already pretty much 'to hand'.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...With the J27 having the same 8' x 8' 6" wheelbase as the Midland 0-6-0s, I'm surprised that Bachmann haven't yet offered one - the most expensive part, of R & D, the chassis, is surely already pretty much 'to hand'...

 Ah, but Bachmann were good enough to tell us some years past that the mechanism is now a very small proportion of the cost of a new model. (I imagine this is because the mechanism layout can be devised in CAD, utilising former design layouts as templates requiring only modest adjustment to suit the new model, and much of the machining of the tooling can then be performed by CAM.)

 

Most of the spend goes on the research and tooling of all the visible external parts, which includes the wheel and rod patterns and surrounding detail such as brake and sanding gear, typically unique to the subject in question. (When I take a suitable mechanism from a RTR model to power something different - for example the 57xx mechanism into a J52 body - I usually don't do much to the visible plastic detail on the mechanism because it looks decent, is sturdy and non-conducting. All I did was saw off the external brake pull rods on the example cited. But 'we' wouldn't accept that on a complete RTR model!)

[Brit70053]

Have to agree that the positioning of the bogies in relation to the cylinders always poses a big problem when dealing with kit built versions of the B16 or A8, especially if they're required to get round less generous radii curves.

Simple inside cylinder types such as J21, J27 and A5 would be much less challenging to produce RTR.

I'm also a little surprised that Hornby haven't yet gone for the G5, since they have successfully produced 0-4-4 chassis for a number of not dis-similar southern locos. They may of course be waiting until the new build G5 is complete to stage a co-inciding introduction.

 

Edit typo

Edited January 18, 2018 by Brit70053

[Jol Wilkinson]

Some great ideas here - the argument "A5 or A8"? would probably go to the A5, I suspect, for 2 reasons. First, it would appeal to GCR area afficionados as well, (although they only appeared in the NER area after Grouping, of course), but secondly, getting the bogie arrangement to work whilst still getting the model to 'look right' would take some serious model engineering skills. This argument also works against the B16, H1, NER Atlantics, A7, the original A2 etc.

 

With the J27 having the same 8' x 8' 6" wheelbase as the Midland 0-6-0s, I'm surprised that Bachmann haven't yet offered one - the most expensive part, of R & D, the chassis, is surely already pretty much 'to hand'.

 

I am unsure as to why you think the chassis has the most expensive development cost. Having designed a number of 4mm etched loco kits, it is the "superstructure" that requires the most research and development. Of course that may be easier if you have a preserved prototype to scan and you are producing CNC produced moulding tools, but I would still think the chassis needs less "input".

[MarkC]

I am unsure as to why you think the chassis has the most expensive development cost. Having designed a number of 4mm etched loco kits, it is the "superstructure" that requires the most research and development. Of course that may be easier if you have a preserved prototype to scan and you are producing CNC produced moulding tools, but I would still think the chassis needs less "input".

Well, I wasn't thinking along the lines of etched, tbh, as most RTR is moulded plastic. Yes, the master takes time too, but it was always mechanisms that took up time and initial cost for R & d. OK, as you say, modern CAD helps, but perhaps I'm looking at it from an old style of thinking.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I'm also a little surprised that Hornby haven't yet gone for the G5, since they have successfully produced 0-4-4 chassis ...

 Having demonstrated a successful layout on the M7 ten years past, I have been surprised that Hornby have not by now got to the 'obvious' exploitations of either a powerful and pretty in blue Drummond CR specimen, or - wince - something from the MR's quaternary power department. Chance of a G5 from Hornby with those two historically better known specimens ignored pretty small I would suggest. Chance of a G5 with a new build performing on a well known preserved line or two: much, much better.

[The Black Hat]

So lets look at the obvious one that people look at first;

 

Engines. Most immediately thinks of these first.

 

Being part of the large LNE region, most of the group standard engines have been done. That sees all the engines used for Top Link express duties made, being A1, A2, A3, A4. Some other great designs for other work like V2, B1, B17, L1, J39 are all made too. So you can get quite a nice Eastern fleet going to start with, even if really some of these models were made for the GE area that Hornby expanded into, such as B17 and L1 for London suburban traffic. One recent release which moved Hornby from GE to NE area was K1, which brought an engine of group standard design more akin to northern operation.

 

Engines from other regions that migrated into the area following nationalisation are also made. The Ivatt 2MT and 4MT moved north eastwards, along with engines like the Fairburn tanks. Add to this BR standards in the form of 4MT 2-6-0 and 4-6-0 tender engines and 3MT and the 4MT tank engines. WD's and 9Fs were introduced as well for heavy freight duties. So its possible to model areas like the North Yorkshire coast and lines into the rural dales that would have seen engines like those that moved north, or were built for the area. It also gives a chance to have BR standards operating with the group standard built engines. The new DJM J94 also gives a nice shunter brought into the region but adopted into LNER schemes before nationalisation.

 

That means that in terms of steam, indigenous North Eastern grouping designs are all that's left.

 

Matters are helped when you consider that diesels for the period have been done too. Class 03 and 08 shunters are done, as are engines such as class 20, 24, 25, 31, 37, 40, 44/45, 47 and 55. That gives you pretty much the entire diesel fleet that would have replaced steam. Units also feature heavily too, such as class 101, 108 and Derby Lightweight, so that those which replaced steam can be seen arriving on the scene as steam takes its final call.

 

With such a range already in place, it points to a wide range that has already been bought for use in a North Eastern scene, alongside others using such classes to model elsewhere. All that's needed are north east specific examples. Q6, eventually broke this barrier by being the first new high spec and tooled engine to be made. Bachmann have followed suit with the redone J72, replacing the one that was in the range for sometime and did keep selling.

 

With Q6 done and having sold well over time as the engine also breached the £100 mark for a standard freight engine upon release, it shows that the market area here is strong. Further releases could soon follow suit, with many engines that can be done from their original grouping North Eastern Railway design, right through to the end of steam. Engines like J21 would match releases such as the Wainwright C class, if done in NER Green, as the engine is better proportioned in design and would wear the attractive livery. J21 would also be able to be done, alongside J25, while other engines such as B16, J27, G5 would give you the rest of the range needed to effectively model the area. Further engines that would overlap with areas like the GC would be A5 or A8 tanks.

 

In any case, that's just 5 or 6 more releases to effectively model the area with engine specifically for NE Region, where as other areas have seen easily more that. The demand of these does exist, and that's what gets mentioned next...

[Retro_man]

An upgraded Hornby D49/2 4-4-0 Hunt would be very useful as they were to be found over most of the former NER lines.

[Les1952]

So lets look at the obvious one that people look at first;

 

Engines. Most immediately thinks of these first.

 

Being part of the large LNE region, most of the group standard engines have been done. That sees all the engines used for Top Link express duties made, being A1, A2, A3, A4. Some other great designs for other work like V2, B1, B17, L1, J39 are all made too. So you can get quite a nice Eastern fleet going to start with, even if really some of these models were made for the GE area that Hornby expanded into, such as B17 and L1 for London suburban traffic. One recent release which moved Hornby from GE to NE area was K1, which brought an engine of group standard design more akin to northern operation.

 

Engines from other regions that migrated into the area following nationalisation are also made. The Ivatt 2MT and 4MT moved north eastwards, along with engines like the Fairburn tanks. Add to this BR standards in the form of 4MT 2-6-0 and 4-6-0 tender engines and 3MT and the 4MT tank engines. WD's and 9Fs were introduced as well for heavy freight duties. So its possible to model areas like the North Yorkshire coast and lines into the rural dales that would have seen engines like those that moved north, or were built for the area. It also gives a chance to have BR standards operating with the group standard built engines. The new DJM J94 also gives a nice shunter brought into the region but adopted into LNER schemes before nationalisation.

 

That means that in terms of steam, indigenous North Eastern grouping designs are all that's left.

 

Matters are helped when you consider that diesels for the period have been done too. Class 03 and 08 shunters are done, as are engines such as class 20, 24, 25, 31, 37, 40, 44/45, 47 and 55. That gives you pretty much the entire diesel fleet that would have replaced steam. Units also feature heavily too, such as class 101, 108 and Derby Lightweight, so that those which replaced steam can be seen arriving on the scene as steam takes its final call.

 

With such a range already in place, it points to a wide range that has already been bought for use in a North Eastern scene, alongside others using such classes to model elsewhere. All that's needed are north east specific examples. Q6, eventually broke this barrier by being the first new high spec and tooled engine to be made. Bachmann have followed suit with the redone J72, replacing the one that was in the range for sometime and did keep selling.

 

With Q6 done and having sold well over time as the engine also breached the £100 mark for a standard freight engine upon release, it shows that the market area here is strong. Further releases could soon follow suit, with many engines that can be done from their original grouping North Eastern Railway design, right through to the end of steam. Engines like J21 would match releases such as the Wainwright C class, if done in NER Green, as the engine is better proportioned in design and would wear the attractive livery. J21 would also be able to be done, alongside J25, while other engines such as B16, J27, G5 would give you the rest of the range needed to effectively model the area. Further engines that would overlap with areas like the GC would be A5 or A8 tanks.

 

In any case, that's just 5 or 6 more releases to effectively model the area with engine specifically for NE Region, where as other areas have seen easily more that. The demand of these does exist, and that's what gets mentioned next...

 

I would add that L1s were also shedded in the "real" North East, some being replaced by surplus Fowler and Stanier 2-6-4 tanks, though for the former you really need a limousine cab.

 

To the diesels you need to add the class 17 Claytons.  I would tend to discount the class 25 as RTR at least for Teesside, as thornaby had Class 25/0 which isn't done.  On the other hand class 27 can be added as ten of these were new to Thornaby.

 

What is missing from the DMU set is a four-car unit, in particular the 4-car buffet set.  The vast majority of Met-Camm DMUs allocated North of York were 4-car sets with the brake in one of the centre trailers.  The buffet sets worked Middlesbrough to Newcastle and on to Carlisle as part of 8-car trains.  There were also ten power twin 2-car class 101s which were the bulk of the 2-car sets in the real North East.

 

 

The 4-car set here started off as two 3-car units.  The buffet trailer for it is now in the unit and the full 8-car unit ill make its debut at Ally Pally.

 

 

Les

[sem34090]

There’s one on display at the NRM.

 

Paul

I'm curious now! Do you know anywhere I could find photos? I'd love to get my hands on one!

[No Decorum]

I'm curious now! Do you know anywhere I could find photos? I'd love to get my hands on one!

http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/locomotivesandrollingstock/CollectionItem?objid=1975-7022&cat=electric&comp=All&ipp=12#panel-1

[nerron]

Here is one hard at work in BR days

[Markeg]

Here is one I took in 2011 at Shildon. Visiting from Oz

 

Mark

 

[Compound2632]

I want to register my support for NER RTR.

 

I do so with some caution, because, the tendency of manufacturers to confine their efforts to types and conditions that were seen on the Nationalised system means that there may be nothing down the line for me.

 

Clearly BR and LNER versions are a given, but if pre-Grouping, particularly pre-Great War, versions can be accommodated, I would be pathetically grateful. 

 

A show-stopper express locomotive is often a good bet.  I suppose the Atlantic would be a strong candidate, but, for me, a M Class 4-4-0 would be an ideal choice, allowing a tie-in with the National Collection.

 

I always tend towards more modest, workaday, types, as I find these simply more useful. 

 

My own NER loco wish-list (not specifically RTR wish-list, as one day I hope to have the skills for advanced kit and scratch builds), contains a number of prototypes that almost certainly would never be tackled by an RTR manufacturers, but also several that might:

 

Fletcher 901 Class 2-4-0.

Fletcher 1440 Class 2-4-0

Tenant 1463 Class 2-4-0 - another NRM tie-in

Bouch 1001 Class 0-6-0

Fletcher 398 Class 0-6-0

TW Worsdell C Class 0-6-0 (J21)

W Worsdell P Class 0-6-0 (J24)

W Worsdell P1 Class 0-6-0 (J25)

Fletcher G6 0-4-4BTP

TW Worsdell Class A 2-4-2T (F8)

TW Worsdell Class B 0-6-2T (N8)

 

In terms of rolling stock, I would suggest that some of the mineral hoppers would be a good idea and, for coaches, I would prefer the ubiquitous bogie clerestories.  Later types would be more limiting.

 

Be careful what you wish for. Mind you, I've thought for a long time that the Quaker simplicity of outline of the Worsdell brothers' engines should lend itself to injection moulding - especially thinking of those all-in-one splashers on the 4-4-0s. An M would be a starting point. As the Stirling single has now been done, perhaps an 1895 theme with Hardwicke and a Lambie 4-4-0? Though personally I'd go weak at the knees for a Holmes 4-4-0.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Compound2632

[PenrithBeacon]

One of the nice 0-4-0 dock tanks would do for me. There are so many quay side layouts around I would doubt if I'm on my own

Edited January 22, 2018 by PenrithBeacon

[R Marshall]

As someone who lived in Murton, Co Durham as a kid And who played both on the colliery lines and the main east-west line through Murton Town station, I confess I cannot remember the (basically two) types of loco I saw apart from the colliery saddle tank hauling coal and a larger passenger train loco. I think green but probably black.

 

I have tried Google but still nothing rings a bell, as in ‘yes thats definitely the one’.

 

Rob

Rob,

 

The BR line through Murton was essentially NE to SW, though the colliery line down to the coast was East-West.

 

I don't know which years you might remember, but the chances are that the two types were J27 and Q6 - there are lots of pictures of these in the final years of steam in the NE, running empties up Seaton Bank from Ryhope and coal loads back again. There might have been the odd WD 2-8-0 as well, but I haven't seen pictures of them on that line.

 

The line was used as a diversionary route when the coast line between Sunderland and Hartlepool was unavailable, so local passenger, express passenger (A1s, A2s, A3s, etc - which explains your green loco) and parcels would also have passed on that line between Ryhope and Hart Station.

 

Regards,

 

Roy

[R Marshall]

Be careful what you wish for. Mind you, I've thought for a long time that the Quaker simplicity of outline of the Worsdell brothers' engines should lend itself to injection moulding - especially thinking of those all-in-one splashers on the 4-4-0s. An M would be a starting point. As the Stirling single has now been done, perhaps an 1895 theme with Hardwicke and a Lambie 4-4-0? Though personally I'd go weak at the knees for a Holmes 4-4-0.

 

An M would be great - perhaps as part of the National Collection in miniature from Locomotion?

 

I'd have one of these in any gauge:

 

[R Marshall]

RTR NER steam would be great- as far as I am aware Bachmann's upcoming J72 is the first (accurate) RTR available in pre-1923 condition. I would have thought Bachmann might be more likely to do the J21 (in fact I consider it a likely prospect for next year if J72 sales are strong) but I would like a J27 as well of course. A D20 or an Atlantic would be really nice but whatever they do I hope they do them in pre-1923 as well as LNER and BR liveries. The NER Green livery is simply gorgeous and oddly I find it looks better than LNER even though they are nearly identical.

 

See the Bachmann pages for the debate on whether a J72 in NER green from the Bachmann tooling would be accurate - I have grave doubts. Lined NER black is a better bet.

[sem34090]

I knew that ES1 was preserved, but have never seen reference to a model of it in the NRM collection.

 

I still need to have a dig around for drawings!

[Tin Turtle]

As an NER fanatic I'd certainly be interested in anything available - as long as available in NER condition. I was disappointed with the Hornby Q6 as it's not available in NER livery or condition , it's only with the new tool Bachmann J72 something is appearing in NER condition. Can't be many railways that have had their infrastructure produced in ready-made condition so prevalently (the excellent Hornby NER station buildings range in OO and N) compared to the locomotive and rolling stock side