Manor Announced for 00

[adb968008]

4 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

 

I'll call your Vinegar Branch, Phil, and see you with Brandy Bridge (Merthyr) to Merthyr.

 

I think you've make me think a bit, mind you!

Ok i’ll go left field... any evidence of GWR to Manchester Exchange ?

 

 

[tomparryharry]

10 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Ok i’ll go left field... any evidence of GWR to Manchester Exchange ?

 

 

 

No idea. CLC?

 

[adb968008]

23 hours ago, Legend said:

Hmmm

 

Don't forget the cost angle / This is very reasonably priced . I almost cant believe I've said that  but with Bachmann class C approaching £200, the 812 through Rails £200 and the V2 £225  then even if Bachmann were to have been working on one secretly the costing may well rule it out .   Hornby are a bit more moderate but I think the 2MT is around £175 ish, so probably a touch more expensive.

 

Cost could well be a significant factor here . Announce first at low cost .

Dont forget theres economies of scale here...

The Dapol Prairie, Mogul and Manor could in theory share commonality of a chassis..., and mogul tender too.

 

Hornby could in theory put a Manor body with the Grange... though imho Dapol could win out immediately on the wheel design, and the mogul looks to have a more accurate Green than Hornbys BR/GWR green track record on GW locos.

 

Bachmann I think would be out of the bunfight, unless it was a decade or so in the future, or a skunkworks project.

 

but tbh I think Dapol have this to themselves... glad they've done it, I got to hold their mogul at Warley, I love their chassis and their use of more accurate wheels, including tyre tread thickness...

 

It was kind of predictable, I had an in depth conversation about manors at Warley, it kind of fell into it from a discussion of the mogul and I left feeling very informed, which made me assume they've already done a ton of research on Manors.. which presumably wasnt just for fun.

But again.. i was really impressed with the Dapol mogul.. so I  know I will be with the Dapol manor.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by adb968008

[7007GreatWestern]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Ok i’ll go left field... any evidence of GWR to Manchester Exchange ?

 

 

According to the Wikipedia entry for Manchester Exchange, the answer is 'Yes'! :-

 

"Between 1884 and 1943, the Great Western Railway operated a competing passenger train service from Chester General station via Frodsham, Warrington Bank Quay and Eccles to Manchester Exchange."

 

I don't recall ever seeing any photographic evidence for this however.......

 

[Harlequin]

7 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Hornby could in theory put a Manor body with the Grange...

 

Bachmann I think would be out of the bunfight,

 

but tbh I think Dapol have this to themselves...

Other possible Manor Manufacturers would be:

• Hattons
• Kernow
• Oxford Rail

All of them have proven records of going direct to the factory for their own steam locos.

 

(I don't put Rails in the frame because they work closely with Dapol on other things and so I would hope there would be some communication between them about their plans.)

 

[gwrrob]

If I'd been putting money on which manufacturer to do the Manor before this week, it would have been Hatton's.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Ok i’ll go left field... any evidence of GWR to Manchester Exchange ?

 

 

Not very left field actually as GWR engines had regular workings to Manchester Exchange.  78XX were permitted to Exchange (as were 68XX and 49XX).    However the only photo I have seen of  a GW outside cylinder engine at Manchester Exchange was of a 43XX

Edited March 4, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, gwrrob said:

If I'd been putting money on which manufacturer to do the Manor before this week, it would have been Hatton's.

Various possibilities of course Rob but should somebody roll up at, say, a preservation site and ask if they could give a particular engine a once over it could very easily come out that 'somebody else was here looking at that one a few days ago'.  Some places in the preservation world are very good, and thus very helpful, at keeping their mouths shut and not letting on who has looked at what & when; some others it would seem aren't quite the same.  And of course there are no doubt  folk at such sites who know little or nothing about model railways and have not got the faintest idea what commercial confidentiality is.  And there are probably some at such sights who think they're being rather clever by letting on such confidential information.

[Ian Hargrave]

26 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Not very left field actually as GWR engines had regular workings to Manchester Exchange.  78XX were permitted to Exchange (as were 68XX and 49XX).    However the only photo I have seen of  a GW outside cylinder engine at Manchester Exchange was of a 43XX

 
Somewhere.....can’t remember where......I have seen a pre 1939 photo of a Duke/Dukedog at Manchester Exchange .

As an aside,odd to recollect that some Manors ended their days on LMR books.

 

 

[gwrrob]

17 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 And there are probably some at such sights who think they're being rather clever by letting on such confidential information.

 

This guy gave me this look when I asked the $64000 question.

 

[truffy]

51 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Various possibilities of course Rob but should somebody roll up at, say, a preservation site and ask if they could give a particular engine a once over it could very easily come out that 'somebody else was here looking at that one a few days ago'.  Some places in the preservation world are very good, and thus very helpful, at keeping their mouths shut and not letting on who has looked at what & when; some others it would seem aren't quite the same.  And of course there are no doubt  folk at such sites who know little or nothing about model railways and have not got the faintest idea what commercial confidentiality is.  And there are probably some at such sights who think they're being rather clever by letting on such confidential information.

 

Unless there's a signed CA/NDA in place, then there's nothing to stop anyone saying whatever they please.

Edited March 4, 2020 by truffy

[57xx]

There seems to be a lot of huffing and puffing going on, I'm just glad they've announced a long overdue model to replace the old Mainline offering. Snooze you lose, Bachmann.

 

This is the one last class I've been holding out for so I'll definitely be in for one.

[mdvle]

51 minutes ago, truffy said:

 

Unless there's a signed CA/NDA in place, then there's nothing to stop anyone saying whatever they please.

 

There may not be a signed legal document, but that also doesn't imply they should be talking about visit's like that - if nothing else it could simply encourage the researcher to use a different source in the future thus possibly costing the heritage line/loco so often much needed revenue. (not implying that researcher pay for access, but it makes less likely a donation / limited edition model for fundraising will be viewed in a positive light).

[Ian Hargrave]

Maybe GCHQ needs to be informed ?      Posted with the minimum of seriousness and  the maximum length of tongue in cheek....

[mdvle]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Other possible Manor Manufacturers would be:

• Hattons
• Kernow
• Oxford Rail

All of them have proven records of going direct to the factory for their own steam locos.

 

I would have view Kernow as doubtful - I think the overall unspoken (and sometimes spoken) message of the last couple of years is for retailers to be careful in how they approach their commissions, and going for such an obvious and wanted model could be financially risky.

 

Oxford Rail, doubtful for something that would be more of a Hornby product given the ownership structure.

 

Hattons - yes, a possibility and in some ways a good choice for them.  Likely a good seller, which could help make up the lost revenue from losing the Bachmann product line.  Would think they will be needing to announce something else in the next couple of months to generate the next round of revenue now that the Class 66 is being delivered.

 

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Dont forget theres economies of scale here...

The Dapol Prairie, Mogul and Manor could in theory share commonality of a chassis..., and mogul tender too.

 

Hornby could in theory put a Manor body with the Grange... though imho Dapol could win out immediately on the wheel design, and the mogul looks to have a more accurate Green than Hornbys BR/GWR green track record on GW locos.

 

Bachmann I think would be out of the bunfight, unless it was a decade or so in the future, or a skunkworks project.

 

but tbh I think Dapol have this to themselves... glad they've done it, I got to hold their mogul at Warley, I love their chassis and their use of more accurate wheels, including tyre tread thickness...

 

It was kind of predictable, I had an in depth conversation about manors at Warley, it kind of fell into it from a discussion of the mogul and I left feeling very informed, which made me assume they've already done a ton of research on Manors.. which presumably wasnt just for fun.

But again.. i was really impressed with the Dapol mogul.. so I  know I will be with the Dapol manor.

 

 

I don't think Hornby could get away with that, the Grange body is a murderously tight fit over the chassis. It's a beast of a job to get one off and worse getting it back on.

 

Any Manor body would therefore have to be made over-scale in width to fit. IIRC the old Mainline and Bachmann Moguls and Manors were made that way to accommodate the bulk of the original split chassis.

 

John

Edited March 4, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[The Johnster]

Even if the fit was easier, you can’t just put a Manor top on a Grange chassis.  The two locos certainly share common parts below the running plates, but the Grange frames, and hence the length of the chassis block on the model, are longer.  
 

Anyway modern production doesn’t work like that. Each production run is a stand alone project with the exact number of components required, no more, no less, produced on a ‘just in time’ basis.  There are no stocks held of components that can be diverted from other projects, even if they are identical (as I assume the Dapol Prairie, Mogul, and Manor cgassis will be).

[eldomtom2]

There is still a cost saving in tooling though.

[tomparryharry]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Even if the fit was easier, you can’t just put a Manor top on a Grange chassis.  The two locos certainly share common parts below the running plates, but the Grange frames, and hence the length of the chassis block on the model, are longer.  
 

Anyway modern production doesn’t work like that. Each production run is a stand alone project with the exact number of components required, no more, no less, produced on a ‘just in time’ basis.  There are no stocks held of components that can be diverted from other projects, even if they are identical (as I assume the Dapol Prairie, Mogul, and Manor cgassis will be).

 

A Grange is, I think, a No1 boiler. The Manor is somewhat smaller.... No 12?  

[robmcg]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

...

 

Any Manor body would therefore have to be made over-scale in width to fit. IIRC the old Mainline and Bachmann Moguls and Manors were made that way to accommodate the bulk of the original split chassis.

 

John

 

Drat.  Does that all this mean that I will have to re-do my edited picture of 43XXs ?  Not that the GWR made smoke, either...     I do like the atmosphere, fanciful or not, and look forward to all these GWR steam models.... 

 

Currently obsessing with Hornby Stars.

 

Will remove if asked. I know I promised to never put edited pics in proper modelling threads, but the Manor, 43XX and other older 00 versions were still quite nice models. 

 

[Miss Prism]

7 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

A Grange is, I think, a No1 boiler. The Manor is somewhat smaller.... No 12?  

 

No 14

 

[tomparryharry]

15 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

No 14

 

 

Ah, thank you! Now we await a Manor, with a King boiler.....

[Miss Prism]

Be careful for what you wish for - Dapol specialises in picking the wrong boiler and putting it in the wrong position...

 

[tomparryharry]

5 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Be careful for what you wish for - Dapol specialises in picking the wrong boiler and putting it in the wrong position...

 

 

What? you mean vertical, like?

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

There is still a cost saving in tooling though.

 

Doubtful. 

 

They are likely tooling up a new chassis because a) the chassis is a relatively cheap part of the tooling costs and b) that way every piece of tooling for a Manor can be kept together, just as every piece of tooling for the Mogul can be kept together, etc.  so that when they go to do a second run they don't have to scramble to find all the tooling (bear in mind, the Manor could be made in factory A while the Mogul was done in factory B, while in 2 years when another run of the Mogul is done factory B has since gone out of business so it's tooling has been moved to factory C, etc...)