RTR North Eastern Railway Locomotives - A discussion.

[Paul Cram]

As a North eastern Modeller I didn't buy the Hornby model preferring to buy the Bradwell kit instead. This will be DCC as are my other kit built locos. Modern RTR are of little use to me as I don't need the chassis unless there is going to be a flexichas conversion available. Obviously I am out of step with the majority being a P4 modeller.

[The Black Hat]

 You mean how well is Hornby's Q6 selling. It's still current

 

http://www.hattons.co.uk/stocklist/SiteResults.aspx?searchfield=Q6

 

Available for less that £90 at some places apparently.

 

The issue with the Q6 is that the price at release for the model has jumped compared with other releases. Previous similar models like the WD or Super-D were retailing at about £75. That's a signficiant increase. As Q6 became one of the first general freight engine to break the £100 mark for regular sale, this has deterred a few people but overall the engines continue to sell. Hattons also are not always the great yardstick for prices as their change due to whether they want to sell engines and have had reductions and offers on before, then raise prices again on some later. However, their site does look to have sold out of the first release engine R3425 63443, but it can be found elsewhere. Rails of Sheffield are the opposite, they do have 64443, but don't have 63429, but do have the follow up model of 63427, which at Hattons is getting into low stock levels.

 

As prices rise and the market changes to how we all purchase engines and select which ones we go to, I think future releases of engines that you might want more than one of, will also sell slower at first compared with the rush of some types seen before. It would be unfair to attribute this change to any reason why Q6 might take longer to sell, when it can also apply to other releases like S15, Western Region tanks, etc.

[Legend]

If we want an extreme southern Engine that appears to be slow , then it would be the LB&SCR E4, which Hattons still appear to have stocks of (per their leaflet in RM). A bit of a surprise that as I thought Umber would sell. But I only offer this up as further back up to my previous post, that I really don’t think you can infer much from what’s still in stock and apparently slow moving. It really does depend on lots of factors, not least how many were made in the first place.

 

I hope Pat Hammond writes a book on this one day, particularly the last 5 years at Hornby and Bachmann, it really would be fascinating.

[Bernard Lamb]

 

I hope Pat Hammond writes a book on this one day, particularly the last 5 years at Hornby and Bachmann, it really would be fascinating.

 

What do you know that the rest of us don't?

How far are we into that five year period?

Which one will go first?

Bernard

[sem34090]

Although I was the OP I left this thread to develop for a while, so have not read all of it.

 

It seems Dave still has something against Southern modellers. He appears to be advocating the concept that the NER deserves models more than other LNER constituents, so if we follow the same thinking for the Southern constituents, it can be seen that I, as an LBSCR and BR(S -Central Section) modellers suffer a similar lack of suitable RTR models as those modelling the NE. Rly or BR(NE). Indeed only one model is currently available in 4mm to suit my needs, besides the outdated terrier, that being the Bachman E4, and that's not really suitable for my preferred pre-grouping period.

 

There also seems to be the perennial debate of "why wishlist for RTR when there is a kit available". This always annoys me as it is generally put across that those who buy RTR are too ignorant/unintelligent/unskilled to build a kit. For me, buying and building kits is not an option simply on cost grounds: it makes much more economic sense to me to purchase an RTR Loco at £150> than some sheets of brass at a similar price.

 

As a comparison, a Bachmann LNWR Webb Coal tank is unlikely to be on sale anywhere for more than £150. That model will be complete and will most likely run well. It will be well detailed and will be reasonably close to the prototype.

 

To purchase the London Road Models kit for the same loco is £100, not including a chassis kit (£24 I seem to remember) or wheels or a motor. The price is therefore roughly the same, if not more, than the Bachmann model.

 

Whilst I am in no doubt the LRM kit would produce a very nice model, I cannot justify spending the same money on a kit I could easily wreck or fail to build/finish as on an RTR model I can be confident will work.

 

If kits were cheaper I'd be more than happy to give it a go. The few kits (mostly whitemetal, but a single brass wagon) I have built were fun, but had they been advertised at retail price I wouldn't have bought them over an RTR model of a similar prototype.

[BMacdermott]

Although I was the OP I left this thread to develop for a while, so have not read all of it.

 

It seems Dave still has something against Southern modellers. He appears to be advocating the concept that the NER deserves models more than other LNER constituents, so if we follow the same thinking for the Southern constituents, it can be seen that I, as an LBSCR and BR(S -Central Section) modellers suffer a similar lack of suitable RTR models as those modelling the NE. Rly or BR(NE). Indeed only one model is currently available in 4mm to suit my needs, besides the outdated terrier, that being the Bachman E4, and that's not really suitable for my preferred pre-grouping period.

 

There also seems to be the perennial debate of "why wishlist for RTR when there is a kit available". This always annoys me as it is generally put across that those who buy RTR are too ignorant/unintelligent/unskilled to build a kit. For me, buying and building kits is not an option simply on cost grounds: it makes much more economic sense to me to purchase an RTR Loco at £150> than some sheets of brass at a similar price.

 

Hello sem34090

 

Many thanks for being the OP on this thread - very interesting. Your note above concerning the perennial problem of 'RTR vs Kit' debate arose, and that is why I 'banged a gavel' some posts back to bring things back in line.

 

Might be a good idea to start another thread for Southern modellers, lest this one gets bogged down with off topic postings?

 

Brian

Edited February 16, 2018 by BMacdermott

[Legend]

What do you know that the rest of us don't?

How far are we into that five year period?

Which one will go first?

Bernard

No I meant their history , actually over the past 10 years probably. With Hornby. The Frank Martin years, the collapse of Sandra Kan, looking for new production facilities, the Olympic fiasco, design clever , new management etc . With Bachmann the change in direction after their 25th anniversary , huge price increases, Kader, slow down in new products to market. Really quite a turbulent time for both , and of course laid on top of that , the emergence of new competition DJ, Hattons ,Kernow etc. It would be a fascinating read.

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

I have attached an extract from the results of the 2016 Wishlist Poll showing NER locos only. However, as there was discussion about the A5, I have included that as well (but that would probably be A5/2 as opposed to all A5s).

 

The results seem to match the discussion.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

2016 Poll Results - NER Locos Only.pdf

[Compound2632]

Hello everyone

 

I have attached an extract from the results of the 2016 Wishlist Poll showing NER locos only. However, as there was discussion about the A5, I have included that as well (but that would probably be A5/2 as opposed to all A5s).

 

The results seem to match the discussion.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

These poll breakdowns are interesting. The Class O comes surprisingly high given the equally long life of the various 0-6-0 tender classes but perhaps folk are latching on to the manufacturers' apparent vogue for 0-4-4Ts! I am gently amused by the way classes are listed by pre-grouping company, LNER classification, and BR number! (See previous postings on the ambiguity of what people want.) As a committed pre-grouping enthusiast with quite a fancy for the NER but with very little interest in the LNER in the grouping and post-nationalisation eras, I had to look up D20 to learn that it denotes Wilson Worsdell's Class R.

[Paul Cram]

Although I was the OP I left this thread to develop for a while, so have not read all of it.

 

It seems Dave still has something against Southern modellers. He appears to be advocating the concept that the NER deserves models more than other LNER constituents, so if we follow the same thinking for the Southern constituents, it can be seen that I, as an LBSCR and BR(S -Central Section) modellers suffer a similar lack of suitable RTR models as those modelling the NE. Rly or BR(NE). Indeed only one model is currently available in 4mm to suit my needs, besides the outdated terrier, that being the Bachman E4, and that's not really suitable for my preferred pre-grouping period.

 

There also seems to be the perennial debate of "why wishlist for RTR when there is a kit available". This always annoys me as it is generally put across that those who buy RTR are too ignorant/unintelligent/unskilled to build a kit. For me, buying and building kits is not an option simply on cost grounds: it makes much more economic sense to me to purchase an RTR Loco at £150> than some sheets of brass at a similar price.

 

As a comparison, a Bachmann LNWR Webb Coal tank is unlikely to be on sale anywhere for more than £150. That model will be complete and will most likely run well. It will be well detailed and will be reasonably close to the prototype.

 

To purchase the London Road Models kit for the same loco is £100, not including a chassis kit (£24 I seem to remember) or wheels or a motor. The price is therefore roughly the same, if not more, than the Bachmann model.

 

Whilst I am in no doubt the LRM kit would produce a very nice model, I cannot justify spending the same money on a kit I could easily wreck or fail to build/finish as on an RTR model I can be confident will work.

 

If kits were cheaper I'd be more than happy to give it a go. The few kits (mostly whitemetal, but a single brass wagon) I have built were fun, but had they been advertised at retail price I wouldn't have bought them over an RTR model of a similar prototype.

So it would seem that they are correct in that assumtion then

[BMacdermott]

These poll breakdowns are interesting. The Class O comes surprisingly high given the equally long life of the various 0-6-0 tender classes but perhaps folk are latching on to the manufacturers' apparent vogue for 0-4-4Ts! I am gently amused by the way classes are listed by pre-grouping company, LNER classification, and BR number! (See previous postings on the ambiguity of what people want.) As a committed pre-grouping enthusiast with quite a fancy for the NER but with very little interest in the LNER in the grouping and post-nationalisation eras, I had to look up D20 to learn that it denotes Wilson Worsdell's Class R.

 

Hello Compound

 

One of the problems with 'extracts' is that they are...well, extracts. At the start of the LNER Locos section within The Poll Guide we have the following paragraph. We discussed how people liked the listings to appear many years ago and went with that. Hope that helps.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

To assist identification, LNER & Constituents steam locos are listed by wheel arrangement (smallest to largest); by ascending class number; and/or by ascending British Railways running numbers shown in parenthesis. When not otherwise qualified, running numbers are those last allocated by BR (albeit some were never carried, usually because the loco was scrapped after such allocation). Exceptions include those locos withdrawn before 1948. Also please note that in the case of locos of pre-Grouping origin the class designation is that applied by the LNER, and not the originating company.

[Compound2632]

Hello Compound

 

One of the problems with 'extracts' is that they are...well, extracts. At the start of the LNER Locos section within The Poll Guide we have the following paragraph. We discussed how people liked the listings to appear many years ago and went with that. Hope that helps.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

To assist identification, LNER & Constituents steam locos are listed by wheel arrangement (smallest to largest); by ascending class number; and/or by ascending British Railways running numbers shown in parenthesis. When not otherwise qualified, running numbers are those last allocated by BR (albeit some were never carried, usually because the loco was scrapped after such allocation). Exceptions include those locos withdrawn before 1948. Also please note that in the case of locos of pre-Grouping origin the class designation is that applied by the LNER, and not the originating company.

 

That's fair enough! As I said, gently amused... And my apologies, you had said much the same (though not quoting the Guide verbatim) in an earlier post on this (or another?) thread.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Although I was the OP I left this thread to develop for a while, so have not read all of it.

 

It seems Dave still has something against Southern modellers. He appears to be advocating the concept that the NER deserves models more than other LNER constituents, so if we follow the same thinking for the Southern constituents, it can be seen that I, as an LBSCR and BR(S -Central Section) modellers suffer a similar lack of suitable RTR models as those modelling the NE. Rly or BR(NE). Indeed only one model is currently available in 4mm to suit my needs, besides the outdated terrier, that being the Bachman E4, and that's not really suitable for my preferred pre-grouping period.

 

There also seems to be the perennial debate of "why wishlist for RTR when there is a kit available". This always annoys me as it is generally put across that those who buy RTR are too ignorant/unintelligent/unskilled to build a kit. For me, buying and building kits is not an option simply on cost grounds: it makes much more economic sense to me to purchase an RTR Loco at £150> than some sheets of brass at a similar price.

 

As a comparison, a Bachmann LNWR Webb Coal tank is unlikely to be on sale anywhere for more than £150. That model will be complete and will most likely run well. It will be well detailed and will be reasonably close to the prototype.

 

To purchase the London Road Models kit for the same loco is £100, not including a chassis kit (£24 I seem to remember) or wheels or a motor. The price is therefore roughly the same, if not more, than the Bachmann model.

 

Whilst I am in no doubt the LRM kit would produce a very nice model, I cannot justify spending the same money on a kit I could easily wreck or fail to build/finish as on an RTR model I can be confident will work.

 

If kits were cheaper I'd be more than happy to give it a go. The few kits (mostly whitemetal, but a single brass wagon) I have built were fun, but had they been advertised at retail price I wouldn't have bought them over an RTR model of a similar prototype.

 

The "lack of skill" argument is used by, not for, those who feel they need to justify why they don't build kits. What they actually lack is the desire to build a kit, to get the model they want.

 

Also, to put the record straight, the LRM kit for the LNWR Coal Tank includes the chassis (as do all LRM kits and those of most kit manufacturers). However, you are probably still correct in your view that a kit, with all the bits, will cost more than a comparable RTR model. especially when the latter are discounted. Those that build kits do so because we enjoy it and/or it readily enables us to create the collection of models that we want, rather than relying on what the RTR manufacturers may or may not produce.

 

Hello sem34090

 

Many thanks for being the OP on this thread - very interesting. Your note above concerning the perennial problem of 'RTR vs Kit' debate arose, and that is why I 'banged a gavel' some posts back to bring things back in line.

 

Might be a good idea to start another thread for Southern modellers, lest this one gets bogged down with off topic postings?

 

Brian

 

Brian,

 

most topics will suffer or even benefit from some drift. I simply express the view that, if you are enthusiastic about modelling a particular railway, period, etc. with some reasonable breadth, then you cannot rely on what is available - and likely to become available within a reasonable time span - from the RTR manufacturers. Therefore, if you are genuinely dedicated, you have to resort to looking at what the kit suppliers have to offer. So the question of "kits" is relevant, even if people choose to ignore it.

 

That a Poll is run annually to identify what is the most popular subject that the buyers want the manufacturers to produce is, ironically, evidence that the capacity to profitably produce all the RTR models to satisfy the market doesn't exist. So no matter how much polling and wish listing goes on, there will never be satisfaction for the majority.  

 

Jol

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

Just for info...

 

In the 2016 Poll, the A5 was listed simply as the A5, but - in the forthcoming 2018 Poll - it will be listed as A5/1 & A5/2 (see below). The Guide text will explain the relevance of that change. (Incidentally, the change was proposed by a contributor to what was the old MREmag, and we responded with the changes accordingly.)

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

4-6-2T GCR A5 (69800-69842)

4-6-2T GCR A5/1 & A5/2 (69800-69829, 69830-69842)

[BMacdermott]

The "lack of skill" argument is used by, not for, those who feel they need to justify why they don't build kits. What they actually lack is the desire to build a kit, to get the model they want.

 

Hello Jol

 

As noted earlier, the discussion of 'RTR vs Kits' is off topic. 

 

I do not - as you say - lack the desire to build a kit to get a model I want, but when you are a 24/7 carer to a disabled wife, I'm afraid the luxury of time melts away. There are many like me who have either time pressures or failing physical attributes for whom RTR is the only option - and that's ignoring any need for locos to negotiate second radius curves etc.

 

You have had your say; we have heard the message; and there is no need to repeat it again (and again,and again).

 

Brian

[Les1952]

The "lack of skill" argument is used by, not for, those who feel they need to justify why they don't build kits. What they actually lack is the desire to build a kit, to get the model they want.

 

 

 

 

 

I rest my case

Les

[sem34090]

My apologies for causing another topic drift!

 

I appreciate that RTR will never truly satisfy my needs, hence why I am currently working on a range of 3D printed kits for pre-grouping prototypes. The LSWR Adams G6 I'm currently working on so far works out at £11.50 in 4mm, sans RTR chassis.

 

Anyway: I'm off again, carrying on!

[The Black Hat]

It seems Dave still has something against Southern modellers. He appears to be advocating the concept that the NER deserves models more than other LNER constituents, so if we follow the same thinking for the Southern constituents, it can be seen that I, as an LBSCR and BR(S -Central Section) modellers suffer a similar lack of suitable RTR models as those modelling the NE. Rly or BR(NE). Indeed only one model is currently available in 4mm to suit my needs, besides the outdated terrier, that being the Bachman E4, and that's not really suitable for my preferred pre-grouping period.

 

The reasoning behind the use of the Southern region is the disproportionate growth of their regions allocation in production slots when you compare it to others. Western region already had a lead in terms of what was available, Eastern region has grown as they already could include all the top link group standard engines, but Southern have had Southern Steam release after release after release, while also taking up slots of things with slam door EMU units solely meant for that area.

 

To be fair to Hornby, Bachmann have been equally questionable making a whole load of Midland region engines and release after release following up there. Given the collapse in the midland vote overall you wonder why they are still pushing this idea.

 

Even if just one or two of these production lots were used for something else, there might be another North Eastern engine in a range somewhere, as other regions bereft of releases also seek inclusion too. When your seeking just a few releases, an extra one that we could have had, makes a massive difference.

[The Black Hat]

My apologies for causing another topic drift!

 

I appreciate that RTR will never truly satisfy my needs, hence why I am currently working on a range of 3D printed kits for pre-grouping prototypes. The LSWR Adams G6 I'm currently working on so far works out at £11.50 in 4mm, sans RTR chassis.

 

Anyway: I'm off again, carrying on!

 

3D printing is an area that really needs to be discussed further. With several engines sharing things like a common wheelbase, would an engine like J21 and J25 not lend itself ideally to 3D printing to then sit on something like a Hornby J15 chassis?

 

Would this not be a better way to take the skills needed for some plastic and resin kit construction to then apply to get the model with more modern technology techniques and get those engines that are wanted that can still include the detail of recent RTR releases.

Edited February 16, 2018 by The Black Hat

[PenrithBeacon]

The "lack of skill" argument is used by, not for, those who feel they need to justify why they don't build kits. What they actually lack is the desire to build a kit, to get the model they want.

 

...

This isn't true, totally untrue. It requires a fair amount of skill, not to mention the correct temperament, to build kits. The only way to acquire that skill is to actually build them (which can prove to be expensive), getting an appropriate temperament is more problematic. Also kit manufacturers don't help the process by, all too often but not invariably, marketing kits which are inaccurate and sometimes are marketed while they know the kit has inaccuracies.

[Legend]

This isn't true, totally untrue. It requires a fair amount of skill, not to mention the correct temperament, to build kits. The only way to acquire that skill is to actually build them (which can prove to be expensive), getting an appropriate temperament is more problematic. Also kit manufacturers don't help the process by, all too often but not invariably, marketing kits which are inaccurate and sometimes are marketed while they know the kit has inaccuracies.

What puts me off is working with metal and soldering. I really doubt I have the skills , but the thought of it is daunting enough to put me off buying a kit.

 

I have often wondered why companies don’t make motorised generic 0-6-0 chassis , to the most popular wheelbase and provide a plastic kit for loco body and tender. Of course Airfix and Hornby would be perfectly aligned to do this . That would help us to model a plethora of 0-6-0s . But I suspect the reason is that they can make lots more money supplying individual locomotive types as complete finished products, rather than as kits, and so we just have to wait for them to decide to model the loco we want

[Andy Hayter]

I suspect it might have more to do with the relative failure of Triang CKD locomotives.  The fact that they are now collectors items did nothing for Triang's bottom line.  

 

Given that kit building today is (in railways at least) less popular than back then, I can sense the commercial unease at even the suggestion.

[Dick Turpin]

Thinking outside the box for a moment:

 

 

Small does sometimes have a lot of potential, as the recent Hornby Pecketts have shown.

[durham light infantry]

Thinking outside the box for a moment:

 

Y7.jpg

 

Small does sometimes have a lot of potential, as the recent Hornby Pecketts have shown.

If the box is any one of those wagons behind the Y7, i'm in.

 

Mike

[Compound2632]

If the box is any one of those wagons behind the Y7, i'm in.

 

Mike

 

I was disappointed to find, on a visit last August, that the preserved wagons at Beamish are in a poor state compared to most of the other exhibits there.