Jump to content

More model ideas


Recommended Posts

I suppose it depends where AS want to go / which market they want to create.

A relatively new market is Era2 - pre Grouping, but perhaps not.

Also, it would be nice if whatever they 'create' can tie in with other products - coaches, wagons, etc - for a double whammy.

 

Ignoring that, I'm definitely Stanier-biased, so Black 5 and 8F would be grate. Let's face it, multiples of either are prototypical, there were 842 5's and 852 8F's (according to Wiki - I've seen other numbers for the 8F).

 

THEN ...

 

The GWR 14xx always looks great on any Western branch line, or 'preservation line'.

A Western which doesn't detonate when you use it as well - Heljan one is a great runner which many say is flawed.

I had an ugly experience with the other one and won't touch them again.

 

Then there's also a Class ......

 

Al.

Edited by atom3624
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason those 2-6-2Ts were a pale shadow of their 2-6-4T brethren .... whether Stanier used basically the Fowler chassis in each case, I don't know - though I think the smaller locos were both somewhat under-boilered ............ maybe something to do with axle load limits wherever they were intended to run (?) - though there are L.M.S. experts hereabouts who should be able to give chapter and verse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the LMS 8 and 5s are among the 'weakest' of the post 2000 Hornby models. I don't know how much of the 8 is actually the same as its tender drive predecessor, but the thick cab roof is awful. I say this as someone who has a lovely 48773 model but would welcome an upgrade (complete with yellow cab stripes as retired/preserved).

 

Given their sheer numbers, and the ability to also model overseas examples of the 8Fs (niche limited edition for the middle east), together with War Department options, they will be very versatile models.

Also the tenders will be the same between both classes, so saving on tooling costs.

 

Both are models that will lend themselves to smallish but numerous runs that Accurascale seems to be targeting, and have a HUGE geographical range and time span.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

For some reason those 2-6-2Ts were a pale shadow of their 2-6-4T brethren .... whether Stanier used basically the Fowler chassis in each case, I don't know - though I think the smaller locos were both somewhat under-boilered ............ maybe something to do with axle load limits wherever they were intended to run (?) - though there are L.M.S. experts hereabouts who should be able to give chapter and verse.

My understanding is that the 2-6-2Ts had short valve travel – a boob considering that the earlier and very successful 2-6-4Ts had long valve travel. You are right that they were under-boilered. Stanier had a go but wasn’t very successful, although he did construct four (I think) with larger boilers, which were better. Ivatt seems to have regarded the whole lot as a bad job and instead designed his very able Class 2 2-6-2Ts.

 

Thank you for mentioning the 2-6-4Ts. Terry Essery, younger brother of the railway historian Bob, wrote what I think are the the most exciting, informative and sometimes downright funny engineman’s memoirs. He rated all the 2-6-4Ts highly. It didn’t help Fowler’s reputation that his most successful design was a suburban tank loco. Hornby produced the original Fowler many years ago. It was good in its day but Hornby has since retooled it and added the Stanier two-cylinder version. Bachmann has produced the Ivatt version and its BR Standard successor. What’s left? The Stanier three-cylinder version for the Tilbury line although suggestions some years ago didn’t seem to arouse much enthusiasm. It was also put to Simon Kohler that a Fowler with full-height cab doors would be nice. If I recall correctly, he said he would think about it and apparently, he still is.

 

Of course, there is also the niche-niche WT, The LMS Northern Counties Committee 2-6-4T. A fascinating machine, one of which survives in working order. Parallel boiler, full-height cab doors, 6' driving wheels and it must have been one of the earliest to have a rocking grate. Over to Accurascale.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G-BOAF said:

I would say the LMS 8 and 5s are among the 'weakest' of the post 2000 Hornby models. I don't know how much of the 8 is actually the same as its tender drive predecessor

 

 

The post 2000 main range* 8F was completely new tooling, including the tender - though quite why the new tooling perpetuated the weird step in on the bottom of the tender is a mystery.

 

As would be expected things have moved on in the 20 odd years since it was released - finer plastic details, decoder socket in the tender, fully painted / separately fitted cab detail, etc.

 

You could say it (and the Black 5) were the 47s of their time in as much as you have a large class - superficially all 'the same' but with a massive amount of variation over the years - and as with the 47 is quite likely someone will take it on in future.

 

 

* Some of the old tooling (e.g. a ringfield tender chassis minus the actual motor and gears) did eventually end up being reused in a budget / Railroad version IIRC

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Black 5 Bear said:

A Standard 2MT 2.6.2 tank would prove popular as Bachmann seem to have put the body retool on the back burner. 

 

 

Only problem is how do you know Bachmann are not already working on this in the background?

 

You need to remember that Bachmann's new mode of operation is to NOT announce things (including a retooled body) in advance of it being on its way from the factory.

 

In the recent video Bachmann themselves made it clear that although they cannot do anything about products announced before 2019 as they work through the backlog then you will get the situation of the public 'in progress' list shrinking and eventually containing nothing.

 

As has been pointed out MANY times before direct duplication between manufacturers is usually avoided precisely because it lowers rather than increases shareholder profits. With Bachmann having re-tooled the chasis there is a pretty good chance the body will be tackled by them at some point with the first anyone knows about it being the loco on the high seas from China.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Only problem is how do you know Bachmann are not already working on this in the background?

 

You need to remember that Bachmann's new mode of operation is to NOT announce things (including a retooled body) in advance of it being on its way from the factory.

 

In the recent video Bachmann themselves made it clear that although they cannot do anything about products announced before 2019 as they work through the backlog then you will get the situation of the public 'in progress' list shrinking and eventually containing nothing.

 

As has been pointed out MANY times before direct duplication between manufacturers is usually avoided precisely because it lowers rather than increases shareholder profits. With Bachmann having re-tooled the chasis there is a pretty good chance the body will be tackled by them at some point with the first anyone knows about it being the loco on the high seas from China.

Fair comment and as you quite rightly say, we have no idea what is in the pipeline from Bachmann.

Whoever takes up the mantle, a 2MT produced to modern standards would be a very popular choice....

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

..........  Bachmann's new mode of operation is to NOT announce things ... in advance of it being on its way from the factory. ............. direct duplication between manufacturers is usually avoided precisely because it lowers ... profits. ..........

But if nobody's announcing things until they're on the boat, how on earth are duplications to be avoided ?

( I've long thought that the trade needs an 'ombudsman' who can be trusted with advance information and can say "Someone - who shall remain nameless - is already working on that." at the appropriate moment. ............. I wouldn't charge much of a fee ! )

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

But if nobody's announcing things until they're on the boat, how on earth are duplications to be avoided ?

( I've long thought that the trade needs an 'ombudsman' who can be trusted with advance information and can say "Someone - who shall remain nameless - is already working on that." at the appropriate moment. ............. I wouldn't charge much of a fee ! )

However, many manufacturers choose to duplicate. Many years ago, Hornby decided to produce a Thompson B1 and a Standard 4 4-6-0, even though there  was one on the market. Bachmann chose to upgrade its model in response. Hornby chose to model an 08, even though a perfectly good one was available. DJ decided to go ahead with the Class 71 in the full knowledge that someone (which turned out to be Hornby) had measured the preserved example. Heljan must have known that Bachmann would follow its 24 with a 25, as would SLW, yet still chose to produce a triplicate. I could go on. It seems a bit mad at times.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

But if nobody's announcing things until they're on the boat, how on earth are duplications to be avoided ?

( I've long thought that the trade needs an 'ombudsman' who can be trusted with advance information and can say "Someone - who shall remain nameless - is already working on that." at the appropriate moment. ............. I wouldn't charge much of a fee ! )

 

They can't grantee it - which is why model railway manufacturing is a tricky business to be in, particularly for start ups.

 

That said, as with any business, there are things you can do to minimise the risk - paying close attention to what key people have said (or more importantly not said) where they have been, etc can give clues. Similarly a consideration of what rival manufacturers have (or don't have) in their range, the detail level they use on new models (noting we have roughly 3 levels now, basic standard and ultra high detail) how much backlog they may have or indeed whether the proposed model can be used as a basis for something else can all be useful in helping guide decisions over which project to invest in next.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

However, many manufacturers choose to duplicate. Many years ago, Hornby decided to produce a Thompson B1 and a Standard 4 4-6-0, even though there  was one on the market. Bachmann chose to upgrade its model in response. Hornby chose to model an 08, even though a perfectly good one was available. DJ decided to go ahead with the Class 71 in the full knowledge that someone (which turned out to be Hornby) had measured the preserved example. Heljan must have known that Bachmann would follow its 24 with a 25, as would SLW, yet still chose to produce a triplicate. I could go on. It seems a bit mad at times.

 

Indeed - but by and large these are not direct duplication!

 

What we have seen is that you usually get a difference in detail level and price, the best example being Hornby, Bachmann and Hattons all producing class 66s. That sort of duplication is not so ruinous to a manufacturer as they still have a clear advantage in one or more areas.

 

We are seeing the same happen with the 9F - Hornbys new model having a much better detail level than Bachmanns current offering - and the same happened with the 08 in the past.

 

IIRC it was much the same story with the B1s where Bachmann initially did a 'half upgrade' and only retooled the mechanism and not the body.

 

What is clear is that diesels are far more likely in duplication terms because there are so few types (particularly long lasting ones) in comparison to steam locos - but even here there is what might be termed an 'arms race' going on as each manufacturer tries to outdo each other.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Indeed - but by and large these are not direct duplication!

 

What we have seen is that you usually get a difference in detail level and price, the best example being Hornby, Bachmann and Hattons all producing class 66s. That sort of duplication is not so ruinous to a manufacturer as they still have a clear advantage in one or more areas.

I agree and I feel that this form of duplication is beneficial. People who can’t afford or don’t want the highest detail can still have a model railway with stock they want. I feel something like the 25 is excessive. 3 manufacturers all trying to do a superdetail model. Although at least with the 25 there’s so many variations. In areas where we see little or no duplication the prices also rise. Bachmann 40s v Bachmann 45s in price or the Hornby HST. Some competition is good but too much just gets boring. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Class 158 productions said:

I agree and I feel that this form of duplication is beneficial.

 

Definitely. As you say it's interesting to compare the prices of stuff with direct competition vs those without. Like when Bachmann took £20 or £30 out of the 66 when the Hattons one came along. Obviously there is competition anyway, for example some people would always rather have 2 Hornby 59s instead of a new Bachmann 47 and so there is always the bang for buck comparison regardless of how good or expensive something gets. I tend to be willing to pay the buck for an adequate bang, innuendo not intended.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, G-BOAF said:

I would say the LMS 8 and 5s are among the 'weakest' of the post 2000 Hornby models. I don't know how much of the 8 is actually the same as its tender drive predecessor, but the thick cab roof is awful. I say this as someone who has a lovely 48773 model but would welcome an upgrade (complete with yellow cab stripes as retired/preserved).

 

Given their sheer numbers, and the ability to also model overseas examples of the 8Fs (niche limited edition for the middle east), together with War Department options, they will be very versatile models.

Also the tenders will be the same between both classes, so saving on tooling costs.

 

Both are models that will lend themselves to smallish but numerous runs that Accurascale seems to be targeting, and have a HUGE geographical range and time span.

 "I would say the LMS 8 and 5s are among the 'weakest' of the post 2000 Hornby models".

Agree wholeheartedly with your comments  regarding these locos, which most people will agree are well past their production life.

Not to mention the unsightly, visible and toy like mechanism below the boiler on the 8F.

It's time this model was retired or relegated to the Railroad range and an up to date model offered by whoever may choose to produce it.

 

Edited by Black 5 Bear
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Black 5 Bear said:

 "I would say the LMS 8 and 5s are among the 'weakest' of the post 2000 Hornby models".

Agree wholeheartedly with you comments  regarding these locos, which most people will agree are well past their production life.

Not to mention the unsightly, visible and toy like mechanism below the boiler on the 8F.

It's time this model was retired or relegated to the Railroad range and an up to date model offered by whoever may choose to produce it.

 

Too expensive and complex to be in railroad (which has an adequate model for its purposes). You would need a retool of the models (similar to the Railroad A4s) to work in Railroad.

 

The mechanism below the boiler/firefox is very much a standout that does not happen today (indeed the last model so inflicted was the Bachmann C Class, which detracts from what is otherwise a really lovely model). Simple solution of having the boiler mounted in the boiler, on a metal bottom half of the boiler, and the gearbox running through the firebox (indeed potentially much of the motor could also be in the firebox with a drive shaft out the rear end to a drive chain near the backhead)

 

Of the post 2000 models I think the A4s and A3s have aged well and will be difficult to beat (except maybe for frame detail on the chassis block). Ditto the Class 60, 08/09, the Scotts and Patriots (with the excpetion of the tender shelf). Merchant Navy was excellent but has some weaknesses (in boiler seam and hollow tooth of firefox). Original Light Pacifics could do with a chassis lift and some body tweaks but are acceptable, and tender on both is excellent. Duchess and Princess have already been redone. I would say the '2000 era' runs up to around 2008/2009, with the Castles, 28XX etc from this second era (and really too soon to be superceded), that ended with 'design clever', beyond which we are in the 'present day'.

 

Getting O/T.

Edited by G-BOAF
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, G-BOAF said:

Ditto the Class 60

 

I think the 67 is good too, the fuel tank is about the only thing wrong with it and it was for a practical purpose they did it?

 

Of course other than the rubbish lighting functionality which applies to everything Hornby makes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/08/2021 at 21:26, phil-b259 said:

 

Only problem is how do you know Bachmann are not already working on this in the background?

 

You need to remember that Bachmann's new mode of operation is to NOT announce things (including a retooled body) in advance of it being on its way from the factory.

 

In the recent video Bachmann themselves made it clear that although they cannot do anything about products announced before 2019 as they work through the backlog then you will get the situation of the public 'in progress' list shrinking and eventually containing nothing.

 

As has been pointed out MANY times before direct duplication between manufacturers is usually avoided precisely because it lowers rather than increases shareholder profits. With Bachmann having re-tooled the chasis there is a pretty good chance the body will be tackled by them at some point with the first anyone knows about it being the loco on the high seas from China.

True, but it'll also be £50 more expensive than a hypothetical Accurascale version...;)

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the Redlands SDT a train I often sew in the 90’s, well setting outside on break when at work. I would like to have a set to run on a layout. Plenty of scope to weather for modellers. Lots of detail both on the the hopper wagons with the belts underneath and the delivery wagon sorry don’t know the official name. It might be memory but was there more then one? I seem to remember two but it was what 20+ years ago now. 

623DDB65-0C62-4D1D-A7AC-502FCF7FD218.jpeg

2CEC8F71-086D-47F1-8DE2-68CF8FFB8C7B.jpeg

Edited by farren
  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, No Decorum said:

However, many manufacturers choose to duplicate. Many years ago, Hornby decided to produce a Thompson B1 and a Standard 4 4-6-0, even though there  was one on the market. Bachmann chose to upgrade its model in response.

 

Many years ago your choices were also a lot more limited - you bought Bachmann or Hornby for the most part, with the occasional Dapol or Heljan.

 

The market is a lot more crowded now, with more new items, making duplication in most cases a lot more risky given the increased options for the hobby £.

 

But I also think we need to be clear that there really are 2 different types of duplication, one good and one bad.

 

The good - tooling up a new, better (more detail, more features, more accuracy) model.

 

The bad - competing high end new tooling where (with a few exceptions) the market can really only support one new tooled item.

 

The Class 47 was so numerous and likely still popular enough that 2 new models can probably still be profitable - on the other hand 2 new models of a Class 50 would probably be a problem.

Edited by mdvle
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mdvle said:

competing high end new tooling where (with a few exceptions) the market can really only support one new tooled item.

 

Yes, it is a risk that anyone takes when deciding to do the tooling too isn't it.

 

In modern traction world I expect the only ones the market will fully support multiple competing models (i.e. not the cheaper Hornby ones for example where I think the customer base is different) would be 08, 37, 47, 66 and the HST.

 

I expect that Bachmann's 55 will only be bought by those unaware of/unconfident with what is a relatively new brand in Accurascale once it is out. It will be interesting if they upgrade it.

 

It is a funny one though as Bachmann (as an example) are sitting on good tooling for the 70 and 90 and not really using it (having being a while since new announcements for either). Is that because the market won't support one tool for these locos? Given what 70s go for on eBay I doubt that is the case there at least.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with the LOOK of the Bachmann 70, but it's way underweight, and cannot pull the skin off a treacle toffee (bit more than a rice pudding!) !

I think as things get ever-more representative - read realistic - that a Class 37, 40, 47 etc., shouldn't be able to haul more than a Class 70.

Work is required here.

The chassis needs to be considerably heavier - if possible to create a comparative traction advantage, which it should have as the real thing's an absolute beast!

Al.

Edited by atom3624
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...