DMU Centre Cars

[Bino]

I attended Model Rail Scotland in February and asked the Bachmann team why DMU centre cars were not produced to convert 2 car sets into 3 car sets. To me, it's a no brainer.

 

The reasons I was given frankly shocked me and this has been praying on my mind since.

 

But, I wonder if anyone can guess what they said?

[cravensdmufan]

I assume you are talking about 1st generation DMUs?  If so, most of Bachmann's 2 car releases have been  DMBS+DTCL so to add a centre car either with or without engines would not be prototypical.

 

But I doubt if that was the answer that "shocked" you. Go on, tell us!

[Roy Langridge]

No demand?

 

edit: yes, I know there is really, but obviously their reply didn’t make sense. 

 

Roy

Edited June 9, 2019 by Roy Langridge

[black and decker boy]

I’ve been experimenting using a Lima/Hornby centre car on a Bachmann chassis to create a 3 car set.

[Clive Mortimore]

6 hours ago, Bino said:

I attended Model Rail Scotland in February and asked the Bachmann team why DMU centre cars were not produced to convert 2 car sets into 3 car sets. To me, it's a no brainer.

 

The reasons I was given frankly shocked me and this has been praying on my mind since.

 

But, I wonder if anyone can guess what they said?

Which types of DMU?

[caradoc]

Bachmann have produced the 3-car version of the Class 108, and they are doing (eventually) the 117, but I agree further 3-car sets would be most useful. However as cravensdmufan says simply producing an extra vehicle to add to a 2-car set is not the answer !

[adb968008]

Class 205 centre car would be nice., but expensive.

 

I’m thinking Selling 3 cars has less incentive to a manufacturer than a 2 car...a 3rd car reduces sales and increases costs...how..

 

If you sell a 2 car, you need a second 2 car to make a longer prototypical train... so you sell 2x Units.

 

But if you buy a 3 car many will have needs fulfilled and have no need of a further identical purchase.

 

At the same time that third car increases both development costs and resale price, and as with my opening line.. to buyer its expensive and off putting...

 

on the real railway network, in DMUs specifically a 2 car (and 2x2 cars) was always more common than a 3 car or 2x 3 cars or a 3+2 for that matter).

 

For example..

 

Some may think this logic odd but...

A class 504 maybe more successful than a class 304..

 

I think the only way i’d ever see my pet EMU (class 304), would be if someone made a 2 car class 504, and simultaneously produced 64ft mk1 suburbans... kit bashing can do the rest.

 

A 504 meets the shape, era and people generally like unusual niche, those who really want it could buy 2 or more. 

Being a 2 car mk1 EMU fits 30 years of era, and at a lower tooling cost.

 

But a 304 would require 2 extra tooling putting The price considerably higher,  and most people would only buy 1 making the investment more risky.

Edited June 9, 2019 by adb968008

[jonny777]

8 hours ago, Bino said:

I attended Model Rail Scotland in February and asked the Bachmann team why DMU centre cars were not produced to convert 2 car sets into 3 car sets. To me, it's a no brainer.

 

The reasons I was given frankly shocked me and this has been praying on my mind since.

 

But, I wonder if anyone can guess what they said?

 

 

Can't be ar5ed, mate? 

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

31 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Class 205 centre car would be nice., but expensive.

 

I’m thinking Selling 3 cars has less incentive to a manufacturer than a 2 car...a 3rd car reduces sales and increases costs...how..

 

If you sell a 2 car, you need a second 2 car to make a longer prototypical train... so you sell 2x Units.

 

But if you buy a 3 car many will have needs fulfilled and have no need of a further identical purchase.

 

At the same time that third car increases both development costs and resale price, and as with my opening line.. to buyer its expensive and off putting...

 

on the real railway network, in DMUs specifically a 2 car (and 2x2 cars) was always more common than a 3 car or 2x 3 cars or a 3+2 for that matter).

 

For example..

 

Some may think this logic odd but...

A class 504 maybe more successful than a class 304..

 

I think the only way i’d ever see my pet EMU (class 304), would be if someone made a 2 car class 504, and simultaneously produced 64ft mk1 suburbans... kit bashing can do the rest.

 

A 504 meets the shape, era and people generally like unusual niche, those who really want it could buy 2 or more. 

Being a 2 car mk1 EMU fits 30 years of era, and at a lower tooling cost.

 

But a 304 would require 2 extra tooling putting The price considerably higher,  and most people would only buy 1 making the investment more risky.

Class 304, well there are already some lovely Mk1 suburban long underframe coaches that can make a class 304/2. I didn't go for an AM4/1 as it would look too much like an AM8/1 and they didn't run on the GER. Look at all the fun you can have with Replica Mk1 suburbans. The thread also has some DMU center coaches.

 

Not done a 504, but a 2 EPB with new cabs is the way to go.

[cravensdmufan]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

Bachmann have produced the 3-car version of the Class 108, and they are doing (eventually) the 117, but I agree further 3-car sets would be most useful. However as cravensdmufan says simply producing an extra vehicle to add to a 2-car set is not the answer !

Yes they did, and very nice it is too.

 

They also did a power twin class 108.  Occasionally I use a Hornby/Lima 101 TSL centre car with my blue and grey unit which looks good - and is prototypical.

 

I'm also looking forward to Bachmann's 117.

[Bino]

Quote

 

 

Quote

 

I should have said that my interest is in 1st Generation given that my layout theme is Scottish 1960's.

 

The answer is/was that it would not be possible to number the centre cars prototypically. That in its self is not so shocking but when I suggested that to many modellers (ie me) that would be a minor factor I was told that the prevailing criticism from modelling media is a major factor that they take very seriously and such criticism does influence their decision making.

 

[cctransuk]

15 minutes ago, Bino said:

The answer is/was that it would not be possible to number the centre cars prototypically.

 

 

Uhhh? no - sorry, they've lost me there.

 

.... or are they trying to say that there were significant differences between the driving cars of a two-car set and those of a three-car set - that makes sense. Simply adding a centre car to a two-car motor / trailer set would not produce an authentic three car set.

 

Having produced a two-car set, you'd need to retool the outer cars for a three-car set; not just tool the centre car.

 

In that case, I can see their logic and would agree that simply producing a centre car would be (rightly) criticised in the model media.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Wheatley]

In other words, they'd have to make up a number to create a non-prototypical set, which is what cravens said. For 1st gen ScR you need motor+ trailer, or mptor+trailer+motor,  not motor + 2 trailers. Taking centre cars out to make power twins came later. They won't do it because it's wrong, they aren't Triang.  

[robertcwp]

Bachmann has a power-twin Cravens and the 3-car sets were the same but with a trailer in between. However, the trailers were withdrawn in the late 1960s or thereabouts. For the Met-Cam they would need to do a motor composite. There were only five 3-car 108s and only six 4-car units.

 

The real problem is the lack of a centre car for the Thumper. But that was a Kernow commission originally and they only commissioned the 2-car one. A serious mistake in my view. From the late 1950s, there were only four 2-car units until 3-car ones started losing a car towards the end of their lives. I have one 2-car set. If they had done a 3-car, I would have had three or four.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Bino said:

 

I should have said that my interest is in 1st Generation given that my layout theme is Scottish 1960's.

 

The answer is/was that it would not be possible to number the centre cars prototypically. That in its self is not so shocking but when I suggested that to many modellers (ie me) that would be a minor factor I was told that the prevailing criticism from modelling media is a major factor that they take very seriously and such criticism does influence their decision making.

 

The Hornby 110 with Derby type cabs makes a reasonable class 107.

 

Hornby still make the Lima 3 car Met -Cam. No one makes a Gloucester 2car, a Swindon Cross Country 3 car, a Ayrshire Swindon Intercity or a Glasgow-Edinburgh Swindon 6 car Intercity. I am not sure if the brake end of the Bachmann Cravens is correct for a ScR unit, but they were only ever 2 car in Scotland. 

[The Johnster]

I think the Bachmann response could have been better worded, but we'll make allowances seeing as how it was a rep put on the spot in the hothouse environment of a show.  Renumbering is not a major issue to most of us on RMweb, but the bulk of Baccy's customers are OOB modellers and expect the work to be done for them, and the hobby media reflects this in magazine reviews.  I'm not criticising this, and in fact think it is overall a good thing that has driven an improvement in RTR standards and drawn many more people into the hobby; some of these improve their standards over time and become inspirational scale modellers!  But many are unwilling to do any of their own work on models because they feel unsure of their ability to successfully manage it and argue that it should have been done already anyway.

 

Indeed, I am in no position to criticise; I do not regard myself as an OOB modeller, and everything on my layout has been worked up in some way, but my stock is mostly RTR or easy kits and there are plenty of compromises.  I have stock that is fairly unlikely in my area at my period, and stock which includes a Hornby 2721 and shorty clerestories, which no matter how much I've worked them up are fundamentally flawed beyond scale redemption.  A 'Limbach' 94xx is a bit of a '4 foot rule' model as well!

 

Can you imagine the reaction if a dmu non-driving trailer was marketed to go with an incorrect 2 car set?  Triang got away with it in the 50s with their 101 and the Southern emu which was based on their generic suburbans, but these were not aimed at a 'serious' modeller market and they'd never consider it no, even for Railroad.  Manufacturers who have done their best are very sensitive to our criticism, because it directly affects what we buy, and the majority of us, the people the market has to cater for, are OOB modellers who do not have or want an in-depth knowledge of the subject; they rely on the manufacturer to get it right in the first place because the manufacturer is the one with the resources and ability to do the research.  This is reflected in the price of the model, which they are willing to pay if the model is correctly researched; very minor discrepancies such as bothered the Oxford Dean Goods are pounced on by the media (and by the likes of us as well!).

 

It will be interesting to observe the minute examination of every aspect of the Hornby and Dapol large prairies that will ensue when the Dapol model hits the market; 'which is better', we will ask, and demand answers from the experts.  They will, of course, both be pretty good scale models within the limits imposed by 00 and both will be well detailed, and quantum better than anything produced RTR even 2 decades ago.  They will run silently and be controllable down to a very low speed.  But, with one of each parked alongside each other on the layout, you'll be able to see a difference.  Stand by for interminable discussions about precise shades of green and the finer aspects of safety valve bonnet shape or chimney taper.  

[Bino]

1 hour ago, Wheatley said:

They won't do it because it's wrong, they aren't Triang.  

 

I think this sums up the situation from my point of view. However, how many modellers run rakes of coaches with identical running numbers?

 

Are some of us too critical?

 

I have seen prototypical DMU sets running with different classes at either end and variant centre coaches. 

 

Do manufacturers pay too much credence to the modelling media?

[cctransuk]

37 minutes ago, Bino said:

 

I think this sums up the situation from my point of view. However, how many modellers run rakes of coaches with identical running numbers?

 

Are some of us too critical?

 

I have seen prototypical DMU sets running with different classes at either end and variant centre coaches. 

 

Do manufacturers pay too much credence to the modelling media?

 

Identical running numbers - NEVER.

 

Too critical - not at that level, NO.

 

Mixed rake DMU rakes; yes, there were - but only with the correct ratio of power cars to trailer cars. Otherwise, the whole set would grind to a halt at the first gradient!

 

Too much credence to the modelling media - NO; most of us are not playing trains, we're trying to recreate the prototype in miniature.

 

Each to their own but, rightly, the manufacturers nowadays listen to those who can remember how the real railway ran.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[dhjgreen]

4 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

....Not done a 504, but a 2 EPB with new cabs is the way to go.

A bit like this

 

With a sneaky bit of LYR EMU creeping in to the right

 

And I have a Bachmann 3 car Class 108 too.

Edited June 9, 2019 by dhjgreen

['CHARD]

1 hour ago, Bino said:

 

I have seen prototypical DMU sets running with different classes at either end and variant centre coaches. 

 

 

Indeed, and many of us will portray such lash-ups on our layouts, but I wouldn't expect any manufacturer to bring such a thing to market, despite its faithfulness to prototype.  What couldn't be prototypical, however, would be a centre car for the existing 2-car Bachmann 101.

[Roy Langridge]

Many first generation DMUs were never in fixed sets, so what is the issue? All sorts of combinations used to turn up. The reason given baffles me.

 

Edit: Chard beat me to it - spent to long doing a help chat bot and typing that message at the same time!

Roy

Edited June 9, 2019 by Roy Langridge

[ColinK]

My small layout only has enough space for two car units.  So I wouldn’t buy a centre car.  I’m happy to purchase two car dmus, delighted that bubble cars are now available, but would not buy a centre car or a three car unit. I suspect some modellers are in the same situation, which does suggest that manufacturers are better off concentrating on making two car units.

[Clive Mortimore]

I like DMUs and they came in all sorts of formations. Now some regions kept them in strict sets some didn't so hybrids turned up now and then. Generally the same types were kept together. I am really lucky in having a layout that will take reasonable size DMUs.

 

There are seven 3 car units, one 4 car, five 2 car and a parcels van. All RTR.

 

I also like making them

Three MTK DMUs, a Cravens, a Gloucester and BRCW plus a Cravens made from Tri-ang Mk1s.

 

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I like DMUs <snip>

 

I like all multiple units - but I generally whisper it

 

Roy

[adb968008]

8 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Not done a 504, but a 2 EPB with new cabs is the way to go.

Absolutely, every now and again D.C. Kits 504 cabs pop up on ebay, and I’ve got the bogie sides + some LNER bogies... ready for the off.