More model ideas

[MoonM]

58 minutes ago, GordonC said:

 

🤣 cat and pigeons spring to mind

Maybe a class 47 with a deliberately fat front profile? That will mean across Accurascale, Bachmann and Heljan we have fat, normal and thin to choose from?! And maybe Hornby could make one too with some oversized additional working front lamps? Or Dapol with their own take on the intercity livery? 

[TrainsRule88]

Today I visited the South Devon Railway as I had a day off work. So I thought I would pay them a visit to get some inspiration for my planned layout. Whilst there, I saw a 2251 class locomotive in the sidings waiting for an overhaul. This is number 3205 which is the sole survivor of the GWR 2251 class. 
 

I think that this would be an excellent candidate for Accurascale’s next O gauge locomotive (as well as an O gauge Manor of course). Most RTR O gauge steam locomotives are small tank engines for obvious reasons including space and cost. 
 

But the 2251 class is a small GWR tender locomotive that I think would be ideal in RTR O gauge and I would really like to see a model of this in O gauge and think it would be popular as it is a small tender locomotive. I believe it shares the same boiler as a pannier tank. 
 

You could even produce it in both O and 00 gauge. 

[County of Yorkshire]

41 minutes ago, TrainsRule88 said:

Today I visited the South Devon Railway as I had a day off work. So I thought I would pay them a visit to get some inspiration for my planned layout. Whilst there, I saw a 2251 class locomotive in the sidings waiting for an overhaul. This is number 3205 which is the sole survivor of the GWR 2251 class. 
 

I think that this would be an excellent candidate for Accurascale’s next O gauge locomotive (as well as an O gauge Manor of course). Most RTR O gauge steam locomotives are small tank engines for obvious reasons including space and cost. 
 

But the 2251 class is a small GWR tender locomotive that I think would be ideal in RTR O gauge and I would really like to see a model of this in O gauge and think it would be popular as it is a small tender locomotive. I believe it shares the same boiler as a pannier tank. 
 

You could even produce it in both O and 00 gauge. 

Would definitely snap up a couple of OO Collett Goods from Accurascale. And this loco would be ripe for working inside valve gear…

[Hippel]

Irish beet wagons and a brake van in O?

 

Thanks

Paul

[Dunsignalling]

14 hours ago, MoonM said:

Maybe a class 47 with a deliberately fat front profile? That will mean across Accurascale, Bachmann and Heljan we have fat, normal and thin to choose from?! And maybe Hornby could make one too with some oversized additional working front lamps? Or Dapol with their own take on the intercity livery? 

 

No need. Any requirement for a "Tubby Duff" was fulfilled by Heljan's first attempt at the 47. I still have one, but the Class is currently on the edge of being a Rule One anachronism for me.

 

Have they over-compensated with the new one, then? 

 

My only recent diesel-outline purchases have been small industrial types and a  Southern 1Co-Co1.

 

John

Edited Tuesday at 06:52 by Dunsignalling

[MoonM]

40 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

No need. Any requirement for a "Tubby Duff" was fulfilled by Heljan's first attempt at the 47. I still have one, but the Class is currently on the edge of being a Rule One anachronism for me.

 

Have they over-compensated with the new one, then? 

 

My only recent diesel-outline purchases have been small industrial types and a  Southern 1Co-Co1.

 

John

Yup, quite an odd shape. Nose tapers in and looks very narrow (even Hornby magazine raised this!) and the body sides are too tall dropping too close to the boggies. Sure there may be other things too but those two elements I find quite obviously awkward 

[BVMR21]

11 hours ago, County of Yorkshire said:

Would definitely snap up a couple of OO Collett Goods from Accurascale. And this loco would be ripe for working inside valve gear…

You're not the only one... (are 12 Collett Goods too few?)

[Steamport Southport]

On 22/04/2024 at 16:35, ThaneofFife said:

A TT loco?

Class 47......

 

If they did do TT then I would hope it's not something that Hornby would even contemplate. Leave them to get on with what they are doing and find something else.

 

Thinking more of the Manor than anything. Popular, loads preserved, one of the smallest "big" engines and never has been a model that you would think of as "Hornby's".

 

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

20 hours ago, County of Yorkshire said:

Would definitely snap up a couple of OO Collett Goods from Accurascale. And this loco would be ripe for working inside valve gear…

 

Nothing wrong with the current one.

 

When there are dozens of GWR locomotive classes unavailable RTR (and in some cases not even a decent kit) or having extremely poor models such as both Counties, I don't understand the urge for meaningless duplication.

 

So how many Collett Goods will you sell? I certainly won't be ditching my current ones and I would think I'm pretty typical.

 

 

 

Jason

[Tim Dubya]

3 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

So how many Collett Goods will you sell?

 

At least two, 'cos I'd have one 😜

[County of Yorkshire]

3 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Nothing wrong with the current one.

 

When there are dozens of GWR locomotive classes unavailable RTR (and in some cases not even a decent kit) or having extremely poor models such as both Counties, I don't understand the urge for meaningless duplication.

 

So how many Collett Goods will you sell? I certainly won't be ditching my current ones and I would think I'm pretty typical.

 

 

 

Jason

Here we go. 
 

Your opinion that a new tool Collett
Goods would not be worthwhile is no more or less valid than my opinion that it would be.  
 

Did you reiterate this opinion when Hornby announced a new tool Black 5, 9F or Princess class? Or with the Dapol GWR Manor, Mogul or large prairie? 
 

I agree that a GWR Saint and Hawksworth County are more needed to modern standards, but a bang up to date Collett Goods would be lovely bit of kit to see. 

[TrainsRule88]

On 22/04/2024 at 21:34, County of Yorkshire said:

Would definitely snap up a couple of OO Collett Goods from Accurascale. And this loco would be ripe for working inside valve gear…

Yes definitely working inside valve gear on an O gauge Collett goods would be fantastic. I think all round a collett goods would be a perfect fit for a RTR steam locomotive in O gauge. It’s not too big so would fit on even a small O gauge layout. 

[TrainsRule88]

4 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Nothing wrong with the current one.

 

When there are dozens of GWR locomotive classes unavailable RTR (and in some cases not even a decent kit) or having extremely poor models such as both Counties, I don't understand the urge for meaningless duplication.

 

So how many Collett Goods will you sell? I certainly won't be ditching my current ones and I would think I'm pretty typical.

 

 

 

Jason

I agree the current Bachman’s model is absolutely fine but a Collett goods in O gauge from Accurascale would be fantastic. It’s not too big and not too small either so could be a popular choice for the biggest O gauge layout right down to the smallest. 

[BedeHistory731]

If we're talking about GWR designs that deserve a decent RTR or even kit option, why not increase the representation of their pre-grouping fleet? An Aberdare 2-6-0, the numerous 2-4-0 tender engines, or the larger 517 genus would be welcome.

 

If we're not counting the City, Star, 43xx, and Dean Goods, we have very little pre-grouping GWR representation in a modern standard.

Edited Tuesday at 22:28 by BedeHistory731

[BVMR21]

The Bachmann model isn't really that good, detail is very clunky, the mechanism is not the best, DCC ready variants are rarer than hen's teeth, and generally speaking, the model is rather elderly now.

 

If a new Small Prairie and 57xx Pannier are viable RTR, one does find it unlikely that a 2251 class loco, with provisions for DCC (sound or otherwise) plus a range of other things, would fail to sell.

 

The same goes for a new tooled Hall class, quite frankly the Bachmann model sucks, and the Hornby model is again not worth the paper the price tag is written on. And whilst I echo sentiments that an Aberdare would be good to see (there is a kit available for said model) how many people actually need an Aberdare on their layout? Compared with say a 2251, or a Hall?

 

Though I do not see a 2251 as an immediate imperative, unlike say a Stanier 8F with the Swindon variants, or a Hawksworth County, it is still something that needs to be pointed out as having a rather dated tooling.

This is not me saying that 2251 must be done immediately (same again with the Hall), or that the Aberdare shouldn't be done (I honestly believe to the contrary that it should be done), but more me saying I fail to see how it wouldn't sell if produced to more modern standards.

 

However, now Accurascale has 2 Great Western locos, some passenger carrying vehicles surely cannot be undesirable? The Sunshine stock seem to the coaches crying out in my mind, given Dapol are working on the Toplights, and with Hornby having other Collett coaches as well as the Hawksworths in their range, it would certainly provide a good variety for GWR rakes of coaches, mish mash stuff together.

Edited yesterday at 08:16 by BVMR21

[MJI]

29 minutes ago, BVMR21 said:

The Bachmann model isn't really that good, detail is very clunky, the mechanism is not the best, DCC ready variants are rarer than hen's teeth, and generally speaking, the model is rather elderly now.

 

If a new Small Prairie and 57xx Pannier are viable RTR, one does find it unlikely that a 2251 class loco, with provisions for DCC (sound or otherwise) plus a range of other things, would fail to sell.

 

The same goes for a new tooled Hall class, quite frankly the Bachmann model sucks, and the Hornby model is again not worth the paper the price tag is written on. And whilst I echo sentiments that an Aberdare would be good to see (there is a kit available for said model) how many people actually need an Aberdare on their layout? Compared with say a 2251, or a Hall?

 

Though I do not see a 2251 as an immediate imperative, unlike say a Stanier 8F with the Swindon variants, or a Hawksworth County, it is still something that needs to be pointed out as having a rather dated tooling.

This is not me saying that 2251 must be done immediately (same again with the Hall), or that the Aberdare shouldn't be done (I honestly believe to the contrary that it should be done), but more me saying I fail to see how it wouldn't sell if produced to more modern standards.

 

However, now Accurascale has 2 Great Western locos, some passenger carrying vehicles surely cannot be undesirable? The Sunshine stock seem to the coaches crying out in my mind, given Dapol are working on the Toplights, and with Hornby having other Collett coaches as well as the Hawksworths in their range, it would certainly provide a good variety for GWR rakes of coaches, mish mash stuff together.

 

First spend a day at SVR, then Didcot.

 

I would push for early 30s flat ended stock due to no one has every done it, plus 6913 was mainline registered.

[The Johnster]

11 hours ago, BedeHistory731 said:

If we're not counting the City, Star, 43xx, and Dean Goods, we have very little pre-grouping GWR representation in a modern standard.

Are we also not counting the 44xx (soon), 45xx, 47xx, 42xx, proposed Dapol 31xx, and 28xx?  None of the other major pre-grouping companies have 10 classes represented in the current-standard RTR range.  The Midland was a much larger company; I can only think off 3 RTR locos off-hand, and 2 of those are arguably not to current standards, likewise the LNWR, with only the Coal Tank and Precedent to it’s name, though you might include the Liverpool & Manchester engines via the Grand Junction. 
 

Just saying. 

Edited yesterday at 09:41 by The Johnster

[BedeHistory731]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Are we also not counting the 44xx (soon), 45xx, 47xx, 42xx, proposed Dapol 31xx, and 28xx?  None of the other major pre-grouping companies have 10 classes represented in the current-standard RTR range.  The Midland was a much larger company; I can only think off 3 RTR locos off-hand, and 2 of those are arguably not to current standards, likewise the LNWR, with only the Coal Tank and Precedent to it’s name, though you might include the Liverpool & Manchester engines via the Grand Junction. 
 

Just saying. 

 

Yeah, my mistake.

 

I would love to have more MR and LNWR representation in RTR. The Claughtons, the Cauliflowers, pre-rebuild 2P's, and the various Midland 0-6-0 tender engines (specifically with round-topped fireboxes) would be excellent options. The Claughtons in particular would be good to see, especially with their multiple variations (e.g., larger boilers, Caprotti valve gear, etc.).

[The Johnster]

Let’s face it, any model is good so long as it’s close to scale.  Supply it and someone will buy it!  Big gaps in pre-grouping provision; no Midland, LNW, GN, GE, GC, NE, Caley, or NB coaches, and these were big companies whose stock remained in service for many years post-grouping. 

[frobisher]

On 23/04/2024 at 17:49, Steamport Southport said:

If they did do TT then I would hope it's not something that Hornby would even contemplate. Leave them to get on with what they are doing and find something else.

 

Tackling a loco maybe wouldn't be the best plan as well.  If you just take things based of reusing CAD/Research, AS's best bets to my mind would be the Siphon G, MK2 (b and c) and MK1 suburbans.

 

Loco wise, I'd wait and see what Hornby actually produce and when out of their list (which has substantial crossover with AS's "potentials").  The "safest" bet of the diesels would be the Deltic.

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

On 23/04/2024 at 21:45, County of Yorkshire said:

Here we go. 
 

Your opinion that a new tool Collett
Goods would not be worthwhile is no more or less valid than my opinion that it would be.  
 

Did you reiterate this opinion when Hornby announced a new tool Black 5, 9F or Princess class? Or with the Dapol GWR Manor, Mogul or large prairie? 
 

I agree that a GWR Saint and Hawksworth County are more needed to modern standards, but a bang up to date Collett Goods would be lovely bit of kit to see. 

 

No, as the old Hornby Black Five and Princess were very dated. What's more they are guaranteed sellers which has been proven as the Princesses have sold out quite a few runs out of a class of twelve. We'll wait and see with the Fives, but there were only 842 of the things and there are nearly twenty of them still in existence and most of those are running about, many on the mainline. Even with "lampgate" they will sell.

 

Also see the 8F and Fowler 4P 2-6-4T. They definitely need total new tooling to modern standards. Hundreds built and got everywhere.

 

For the record I did say the Hornby 9F was pointless as there is nothing wrong with the Bachmann version. But they do sell, so Hornby probably did get that right. But that was their choice, with their money taking the risk if it flopped.

 

The Hornby/Airfix/Mainline/etc. Manor, Mogul and Prairie were also very dated. The Airfix Prairie is nearly fifty years old, the Mainline Manor and Mogul were over forty. So it was time for new ones.

 

 

Is there really demand for tens of thousands of a new Collett Goods when there is a tooling that only dates from 2007? I seriously doubt it as everyone's probably got enough. Three or four people saying they will buy one doesn't guarantee anything. 

 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

What is the state of the 2007 tooling for the Bachmann 2251?  ISTR (happy to be corrected if I’m wrong) that the chassis was a development of the original Mainline split-block retooled to take an improved can motor with worm/idler gearing, a significant improvement but hardly up to current standards*.  The bodyshell tooling was based on the original ML model as well, and this is seriously compromised as the original had no backhead detail or glazing.  I think the 2007 retool had glazing but I am less certain about the backhead detail, given that the chassis blocks were developed from ML originals they protruded into the cab.  More seriously than that, the ML bodyshell had an enlarged firebox to accommodate the original ML pancake motor housing and the carbon brush springs; not even up to the better of 1980s standards! 
 

If this is the case, the 2007 tooling is out of scale around the firebox and poorly detailed, which would confirm that a completely new tooling with no connection whatever to the original ML loco is, indeed, needed.  The chassis block and mech from the 94xx could be modified to take the 2.5mm larger diameter driving wheels, to go with a new-from-the-ground-up body tooling, with the detail missing from the old one such as a proper smokebox dart, and lamp irons.  
 

*I have a Hornby large prairie (the previous to the current model, last of the line that originated with Airfix, moulded shovel on tank top fireman’s side) running with a Bachmann 43xx chassis from this period; split block with can motor and worm/idler cog drive.  It is an excellent, smooth, and quiet runner, and I’m happy with it but the well-known ML split pickup axle problems may yet plague it.  Work at Cwmdimbath is pretty undemanding, though, and with gentle driving I should get a few years out of it!  I wouldn’t pretend it is able to cut the modern mustard, though!