Manor Announced for 00

[Les1952]

6 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

I trust Dapol might wish to revisit the blurb's "...to help tweak the sound profile to the autistics of this specific model".

 

 

They have now corrected it- it would appear someone has the same Android autocorrect as my phone- if it doesn't recognise a word (even a correct one)  it substitutes the nearest in its dictionary AFTER you press "send".

[57xx]

1 hour ago, Rising Standards said:

The front of the smokebox doesn't look very manor-like though; the ratio of door diameter to width of ring around it seems slightly off, more like that of a mogul, grange or hall.

 

It does look like the door itself needs to be of larger diameter.

[No Decorum]

3 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

Yes but the point is it’s not the manors tender. So it’s tender may have a hook included. By the by, what do these 2 symbols mean? I realise they mean sound but the letters? 

R = sound ready. F = sound fitted.

[charliepetty]

R for Ready.  F for Fitted.  I would suggest.  Charlie

[adb968008]

Hmm..

 

unsure...

On the Dapol boiler, is that a seam line revealing a metal block under it ?

Rendition of the footplate, and under the cab seem less detailed than AS

sure...

cylinders are whole, the AS ones are part on their EP.

tender/loco coupling.. I do like Dapols mogul for this.

in general..

 

look at how far the wheels on both of them have come...they are ultrascale quality.

 

Open minded in this race.

 

 

[David Stannard]

9 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Hmm..

 

unsure...

On the Dapol boiler, is that a seam line revealing a metal block under it ?

Rendition of the footplate, and under the cab seem less detailed than AS

sure...

cylinders are whole, the AS ones are part on their EP.

tender/loco coupling.. I do like Dapols mogul for this.

in general..

 

look at how far the wheels on both of them have come...they are ultrascale quality.

 

Open minded in this race.

 

 

 

The lower section of the boiler is cast and will certainly help with keeping the weight down low and will help with adhesion due to its placement predominantly over the driving wheels, the footplate details are adequate and whilst it's nice to have it highly detailed it's an area that is not overly visible in the grand scheme of things.

 

The cylinders is where Dapol wins my vote, the ones on the Accurascale model have cutouts in them so they can negotiate #2 Radius Curves but also have the option of fitting plates that have the rest of the cylinder if being used on far more gentler curves or as a static model, you will notice this in the CAD pictures that show a red section that is used to cover the cutout, Dapol on the other hand have managed to give the bogie the ability to negotiate tight curves through some sort of offset cam sorcery.

 

I was always of the mindset that I was going to get the Dapol built model when they first announced it as I like many a GWR nutjob have craved for a modern spec version of this locomotive for years, especially when it comes to my desire to build a cross country line set in Mid Wales this locomotive is a must, I almost purchased a second hand Bachmann Branchline version about 6 years ago and I am glad I did not fall to temptation to satisfy my soul, as the saying goes good things come to those who wait.

Edited February 9, 2021 by David Stannard

[Butler Henderson]

If it comes down to no cut out cylinder rear v  smokebox door proportions right then the latter would be the better IMO  

[mdvle]

On 07/02/2021 at 19:28, adb968008 said:

The hobby is generally too small for duplicate toolings, and the choices left for Manufacturers are too small to avoid duplication. I think were reaching a very crowded point where some manufacturers are looking at law of diminishing returns and may focus elsewhere than rtr OO.

 

It is getting rather crowded - if they want there is still lots of empty space in the US market.

 

More seriously, I can't help but think we are at a point where someone is going to have to roll the dice and see what happens if they offer a 3/4/5 car DMU/EMU...

[Hal Nail]

 

1 hour ago, Butler Henderson said:

If it comes down to no cut out cylinder rear v  smokebox door proportions right then the latter would be the better IMO  

 

Both are more easily fixed than a visible join along the boiler.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could pick and chose the best bits of each!

 

 

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

It is getting rather crowded

And we have yet to see the inevitable quick-to-market, cheap-and-cheerful spoiler Manor from Hornby...

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Harlequin

[Butler Henderson]

 

12 minutes ago, Hal Nail said:

 

 

Both are more easily fixed than a visible join along the boiler

 

 

Boiler cladding sheets were generally joined at the top so a moulding joint along the top of a boiler is not necessarily wrong, more of a issue when the chimney and dome are so affected.

[tomparryharry]

12 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

And we have yet to see the inevitable quick-to-market, cheap-and-cheerful Hornby spoiler Manor...

 

To be fair Phil, I don't think that will happen.  Hornby are pretty savvy, so I  ( hope ) they will go towards a different area.  A  retool of the 1854-2721 pannier would be nice, or a `1701 saddle tank, perhaps....

 

Although it's not in my area, a nice North Staffordshire tank would be good.

[adb968008]

30 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

It is getting rather crowded - if they want there is still lots of empty space in the US market.

 

More seriously, I can't help but think we are at a point where someone is going to have to roll the dice and see what happens if they offer a 3/4/5 car DMU/EMU...

Heljan just did.. with the class 104.

the page has 11k views.. more than both the proposed cl 48, AEC railcar and the R&H  shunter combined... and they only announced it 3 months ago.

 

[adb968008]

9 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

To be fair Phil, I don't think that will happen.  Hornby are pretty savvy, so I  ( hope ) they will go towards a different area.  A  retool of the 1854-2721 pannier would be nice, or a `1701 saddle tank, perhaps....

 

Although it's not in my area, a nice North Staffordshire tank would be good.

Dont write them off..

 

They could stick manor body on the grange, I know its not authentic, neither are the generic coaches, or most of their mk3’s... they might even stick a Manor name on a Hall body.. they did similar with Hogwarts Castle for years.

A generic one GW 4-6-0 covers all GW 4-6-0s is always possible, given where we are going.

 

Ok I might be extreme, but a cheap and cheerful railroad manor cannot be ruled out... the Grange is the obvious starting point and at this point that tooling must be well sweated at this point.

I would prefer someone do a Saint and a County, both of which reside at Didcot and are nether well modelled...

Edited February 9, 2021 by adb968008

[mdvle]

35 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Heljan just did.. with the class 104.

the page has 11k views.. more than both the proposed cl 48, AEC railcar and the R&H  shunter combined... and they only announced it 3 months ago.

 

While I applaud Heljan for offering the 3 car version, I was thinking more of a pure 3/4/5 car unit that can't (at least if they only offer prototype formations) sell in a 2 car version to help boost sales and pay off the tooling and development costs.

 

Though perhaps that makes things more possible, say a 5-car Class 180 also offered in a 2-car set for those with limited space / budget?

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

A  retool of the 1854-2721 pannier would be nice, or a `1701 saddle tank, perhaps....

Choir,  Preaching to.

 

6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

Ok I might be extreme, but a cheap and cheerful railroad manor cannot be ruled out... the Grange is the obvious starting point and at this point that tooling must be well sweated at this point.

I think it probably can be ruled out; the Grange chassis is too long for a Manor and a completely new body tooling would be needed;  Railroad is for existing redacted toolings.  There is nothing on a Grange body that can be re-used on a Manor, though arguably the chassis, motion, and running plate as far back as the cab could be.  But I can't see Red Box going for a Manor in a market that already has two! 

 

The Grange is, AFAIK, a pretty good model despite having been around for a while and does not urgently need a retooling. 

[adb968008]

5 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

While I applaud Heljan for offering the 3 car version, I was thinking more of a pure 3/4/5 car unit that can't (at least if they only offer prototype formations) sell in a 2 car version to help boost sales and pay off the tooling and development costs.

 

Though perhaps that makes things more possible, say a 5-car Class 180 also offered in a 2-car set for those with limited space / budget?

Were slightly tracking off topic, though, and its depressing to think, that the only manufacturer of a 4/ 5 car BR era DMU is actually Dapol... they made 2 cars of the class 124’s back in the 1990’s.

 

But the road map for DMU/EMUs is easy.. pick a prototype where two or more cars are the same or very similar tooling slides, then it comes down to being a sale of 2x number of vehicles sold for every model to reach brake even... which is.. er 1/2 that of a loco... I dont see why its not attractive.

Realtrack/Rapido follow this quite well with Pacers/156 and APTE.

 

I do think the 175/180 family is a good idea.

 

 

 

[Budgie]

6 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Were slightly tracking off topic, though, and its depressing to think, that the only manufacturer of a 4/ 5 car BR era DMU is actually Dapol... they made 2 cars of the class 124’s back in the 1990’s.

 

But the road map for DMU/EMUs is easy.. pick a prototype where two or more cars are the same or very similar tooling slides, then it comes down to being a sale of 2x number of vehicles sold for every model to reach brake even... which is.. er 1/2 that of a loco... I dont see why its not attractive.

Realtrack/Rapido follow this quite well with Pacers/156 and APTE.

 

I do think the 175/180 family is a good idea.

 

I think the Electrostar family is a good idea too.

[tomparryharry]

6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Dont write them off..

 

They could stick manor body on the grange, I know its not authentic, neither are the generic coaches, or most of their mk3’s... they might even stick a Manor name on a Hall body.. they did similar with Hogwarts Castle for years.

A generic one GW 4-6-0 covers all GW 4-6-0s is always possible, given where we are going.

 

Ok I might be extreme, but a cheap and cheerful railroad manor cannot be ruled out... the Grange is the obvious starting point and at this point that tooling must be well sweated at this point.

I would prefer someone do a Saint and a County, both of which reside at Didcot and are nether well modelled...

 

Your quite right: Don't write them off.  I had a bit of a think about your earlier post. Although not impossible, I wouldn't think Hornby are that crass to introduce a really, really substandard  model into what is a tight market.  The amount of bad press & derision from such a move, IMHO, would undermine the direction Hornby have been heading for a while now.  There are a few examples left which can be made, such as the 10xx County.  Reflecting on my earlier post, I'll surmise that Hornby won't upgrade the 2721  just yet, with a plethora of other Panniers just being released. A Hornby release  would just get caught in the current competition. 

 

A really untapped vein is something from the Great Central.  The 'Central' had some quite attractive examples, and Hornby are known for liking  big  engines.

[adb968008]

7 hours ago, Budgie said:

 

I think the Electrostar family is a good idea too.

I think manufacturers are scared to touch it, as rumours persist that one manufacturer has been working on it for “several years” already.

[No Decorum]

14 hours ago, adb968008 said:

I would prefer someone do a Saint and a County, both of which reside at Didcot and are nether well modelled...

 

I’d agree with you on that. The existing models of both are worse than the existing Moguls and Manors, in my opinion.

[MattA]

14 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Although it's not in my area, a nice North Staffordshire tank would be good.

Unfortunately none of the ex-NSR locos made it into BR ownership, which counts against the chances of any being produced RTR. That said, the 'New L' class has a pretty diverse history - as well as being LMS stock into the 1930s, 5 of the Belpaire-firebox'd ones were sold to Manchester collieries (including the preserved one) and a round-topped firebox example went to the Longmoor Military Railway.

Now that I think about it, Rapido do have the suggestion box open for new RTR locos...

Edited February 10, 2021 by MattA

[Dunsignalling]

15 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

While I applaud Heljan for offering the 3 car version, I was thinking more of a pure 3/4/5 car unit that can't (at least if they only offer prototype formations) sell in a 2 car version to help boost sales and pay off the tooling and development costs.

 

Though perhaps that makes things more possible, say a 5-car Class 180 also offered in a 2-car set for those with limited space / budget?

The problem with offering 2-car sets of longer prototypes is that a decision has to be made on whether to offer a choice of short or full sets or, as Hornby do with their Brighton Belles, 2-cars and loose coaches to extend them. Conversely, Bachmann's Blue Pullmans, are "all-or-nothing". If I were a manufacturer, I'd definitely go the Bachmann route, for the following reasons. 

 

From both makers' and retailers' viewpoints, I'd think judging how many loose coaches  to make/stock that don't go with anything else must be a nightmare. 

 

Not enough, and some people who want full sets may be disappointed; too many, and you, or your retail network, could be lumbered with unwanted leftovers until/unless there's a re-run of driving cars or (some) buyers of the short ones belatedly get round to wanting the add-ons.

 

There are plenty of (prototypically) 2-car sets for those with space issues, though the prices (of recent releases, anyhow) are seldom what I'd define as "budget". On a personal level, the only DMUs that would interest me are just 3-car and 4-car anyway, but I'd be very reluctant to order an abbreviated unit without a certainty of getting the rest at the same time.

 

John

 

 

[tomparryharry]

3 hours ago, MattA said:

Unfortunately none of the ex-NSR locos made it into BR ownership, which counts against the chances of any being produced RTR. That said, the 'New L' class has a pretty diverse history - as well as being LMS stock into the 1930s, 5 of the Belpaire-firebox'd ones were sold to Manchester collieries (including the preserved one) and a round-topped firebox example went to the Longmoor Military Railway.

Now that I think about it, Rapido do have the suggestion box open for new RTR locos...

There you go..... You can only ask.  Just remember to make your reasons compelling.

 

Best wishes,

Ian.

[Dunsignalling]

5 hours ago, No Decorum said:

I’d agree with you on that. The existing models of both are worse than the existing Moguls and Manors, in my opinion.

If by "existing" moguls and Manors, you mean the Bachmann ones, they've both been out of production for so long that anybody who entered the hobby within the last decade or so, won't have had an opportunity to buy either new.

 

John

Edited February 10, 2021 by Dunsignalling