Rails of Sheffield Improved Precedent Class

[Legend]

The Caley is gorgeous. But Novelty is exquisite 

[Ian Hargrave]

40 minutes ago, Legend said:

The Caley is gorgeous. But Novelty is exquisite 

 
For me the beauty prize goes to the Caley,much as The Lady In Red is gorgeous. Maybe something to do with a trip on the Speyside Railway two years ago….. Anyway aren’t we lucky to be fêted with such goodies before Christmas ?

 

[Methuselah]

The recent spate of Pre-Grouping locos is very encouraging. I think there is a substantial pent-up appetite for such RTR models. Let's hope more arrive - along with more equally accurate rolling stock.

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

28 minutes ago, Methuselah said:

The recent spate of Pre-Grouping locos is very encouraging. I think there is a substantial pent-up appetite for such RTR models. Let's hope more arrive - along with more equally accurate rolling stock.

 

 

While their may be a pent up demand for Pre-group RTR models, I don't believe it actually encouraging pre-group modelling to any significant degree. The RTR manufacturers have, not surprisingly,  concentrated on locos, but have largely ignored rolling stock. The "generic" carriages from Hornby and Hattons , beautifully painted as they are, don't fill the bill if you want accurate models to go with the locos. It is probably uneconomic to produce even a small selection of LNWR, CR, LSWR, etc.

 

Which is why pre-group modelling will remain the domain of those who are willing to create their models from the wide range of kits that are available.

 

 

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

While their may be a pent up demand for Pre-group RTR models, I don't believe it actually encouraging pre-group modelling to any significant degree. The RTR manufacturers have, not surprisingly,  concentrated on locos, but have largely ignored rolling stock.

 

What's missing is a "train set" approach, such as Triang had over half a century ago - engine plus a couple of appropriate carriages (within the limits of the economics of the age). At the very least, an appropriate goods brake could be produced together with each goods engine.

[Steamport Southport]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What's missing is a "train set" approach, such as Triang had over half a century ago - engine plus a couple of appropriate carriages (within the limits of the economics of the age). At the very least, an appropriate goods brake could be produced together with each goods engine.

 

I know it's LMS, but this is very close. Maybe they thought a MR version wouldn't sell?

 

https://www.hattons.co.uk/71905/bachmann_branchline_30_105_midland_marvel_train_set_with_midland_3f_3522_in_lms_livery_brake_van_in_lms_gre/stockdetail

 

 

 

Jason

[asmay2002]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What's missing is a "train set" approach, such as Triang had over half a century ago - engine plus a couple of appropriate carriages (within the limits of the economics of the age). At the very least, an appropriate goods brake could be produced together with each goods engine.

For the pre-grouping freight locos all you really need are the appropriate brakevans to get started.  Many of the RTR private owners wagons that have been commercially sold have been RCH 1923 wagons in pre-1923 liveries (which tend to be more eleborate than the later ones and look better) so assembling a look alike pre-group coal train is not that difficult given the brakevan.  There are  of course many more accurate pre-printed kits that have been available also in the older liveries so witha bit of kit building you can do an even better job.

 

[turbos]

25 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

While their may be a pent up demand for Pre-group RTR models, I don't believe it actually encouraging pre-group modelling to any significant degree. The RTR manufacturers have, not surprisingly,  concentrated on locos, but have largely ignored rolling stock. The "generic" carriages from Hornby and Hattons , beautifully painted as they are, don't fill the bill if you want accurate models to go with the locos. It is probably uneconomic to produce even a small selection of LNWR, CR, LSWR, etc.

 

Which is why pre-group modelling will remain the domain of those who are willing to create their models from the wide range of kits that are available.

 

 

Understandably rtr manufacturers are reticent about producing pre-grouping carriages, locomotives are a much easier sell with many bought by either collectors or railway modellers that aren’t too bothered about what it hauls, wagons have lower R&D and production costs, so are cheaper to bring to market. Carriages can have fairly high R&D and production costs without getting the sales and profits manufacturers require. If a manufacturer was going to dip its toe in to producing a rtr LNWR carriage a Picnic Saloon would be a good choice either a D77 or a D85. A Picnic Saloon has never been done in rtr and were widely travelled across the GB network. The Picnic Saloon Trusts superb D85 6 wheeler would make the R&D much easier and if a successful model, could be the basis of further 30’1” carriages.

 

Brian.

[No Decorum]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What's missing is a "train set" approach, such as Triang had over half a century ago - engine plus a couple of appropriate carriages (within the limits of the economics of the age). At the very least, an appropriate goods brake could be produced together with each goods engine.

You hit the nail on the head with the goods brake. We have a smattering but we could do with more. Wagons from different companies ranged all over the place but it would be agreeable to have a wagon or two from the “home” company. Again, we have a smattering but we could do with more. A pre-RCH 1923 open wagon should go on and on selling.

[Methuselah]

4 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

While their may be a pent up demand for Pre-group RTR models, I don't believe it actually encouraging pre-group modelling to any significant degree. The RTR manufacturers have, not surprisingly,  concentrated on locos, but have largely ignored rolling stock. The "generic" carriages from Hornby and Hattons , beautifully painted as they are, don't fill the bill if you want accurate models to go with the locos. It is probably uneconomic to produce even a small selection of LNWR, CR, LSWR, etc.

 

Which is why pre-group modelling will remain the domain of those who are willing to create their models from the wide range of kits that are available.

 

 

I'm a late re-starter to model railways. I have limited time for kits and scratchbuilds. I can do some - but some RTR coaches would be great - especially LNWR-built. For example, LNWR coaches could be produced in both LNWR and LMS livery and cover quite a large time-period. I don't think that is so specialist that they wouldn''t sell, and the effort to produce accurate carriages is little different to the generic tat that has been churned out since Triang days.

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

The information required to design LNWR carriages is readily available (I know that because I've done it with etched kits).

 

Is the current level of RTR competition driving the need for ever more accurate models? Judging by the Hornby tv programme currently running, do the RTR manufacturers/commissioners prefer to create a model of something that they can actually photograph, measure and 3D scan? There are very few LNWR (and possibly other pre-group railway) in preservation.

 

Would the economics work out? Lets say you design and tool up for three of four different coaches, albeit of  the same style such as LNWR 42ft corridor stock, what sales do you need and at what price for that to be profitable? The likelihood would be that you might sell one set for each loco sold at best. This is a very loco centred hobby as we have seen from the enthusiasm for this new loco, despite the lack of stock to go with it, other than the generic coaches from Hornby and Hattons. Those that collect RTR locos might not want to buy any coaches.

 

My own stock of LNWR models currently stands at ten passenger locos and thirty five carriages and that is a not enough coaches for a balanced representation of operation (like many modellers I have too many of the rare/unusual and not enough of the everyday).

[Compound2632]

22 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

do the RTR manufacturers/commissioners prefer to create a model of something that they can actually photograph, measure and 3D scan?

 

There are counter-examples, perhaps most notably the Bachmann 1532 Class 0-4-4T. In that case, there is a very detailed monograph with original drawings and a wide selection of photographs, so there's no particular need to delve into archives. It would be interesting to understand the thought process by which that prototype was selected; Bachmann has produced a good range of late Midland engines, or ex-Midland engines in LMS / BR condition - 4P, 4F, 3F, 1F - so it fits with those; along with the G2 and various LMS standard designs from both Bachmann and Hornby (to say nothing of Heljan) the Midland Division of the LMR is pretty much modellable off-the shelf. The 1532 is also good for late-period Somerset & Dorset, which does no harm to its commercial viability. 

 

On the other hand, the argument that folk will buy a model of something that they can actually see in the flesh seems persuasive. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a Kirtley 156 Class!

[turbos]

Manufacturers prefer to have an actual prototype they can 3d scan as this picks up some subtleties not always apparent in drawings. After 3d scanning they then adjust the scan to remove ripples and bulges from flat or smooth surfaces and make certain changes that scaling down and manufacturing require.

 I’m surprised Hornby have never produced any of the LNWR royal train carriages in the NRM collection, Hornby always seemed to have an obsession with producing anything slightly connected to royalty. Maybe we’ll see them in a future Locomtion special edition.

 

Brian.

[Poor Old Bruce]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a Kirtley 156 Class!

 

Don't forget a Spinner to pilot a Compound, although the 2-4-0s did last a lot longer and would be more suitable for a BLT layout

[john new]

2 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

The information required to design LNWR carriages is readily available (I know that because I've done it with etched kits).

 

Is the current level of RTR competition driving the need for ever more accurate models? Judging by the Hornby tv programme currently running, do the RTR manufacturers/commissioners prefer to create a model of something that they can actually photograph, measure and 3D scan? There are very few LNWR (and possibly other pre-group railway) in preservation.

 

Would the economics work out? Lets say you design and tool up for three of four different coaches, albeit of  the same style such as LNWR 42ft corridor stock, what sales do you need and at what price for that to be profitable? The likelihood would be that you might sell one set for each loco sold at best. This is a very loco centred hobby as we have seen from the enthusiasm for this new loco, despite the lack of stock to go with it, other than the generic coaches from Hornby and Hattons. Those that collect RTR locos might not want to buy any coaches.

 

My own stock of LNWR models currently stands at ten passenger locos and thirty five carriages and that is a not enough coaches for a balanced representation of operation (like many modellers I have too many of the rare/unusual and not enough of the everyday).

I suspect your answer is already in your post - generic chosen rather than exact models as the sales run will attract more sales from those in the near enough lookie likeie is good enough marketplace than will be deterred by the ‘it isn’t the exact xyz/sub class 27 diagram coach I need to be accurate’ camp. There is a place for the latter models/modelling attitude, and I am definitely not belittling it, but mass market r-t-r is rarely going to satisfy it.

 

That has been the case for years with 4-wheel wagons as most PO liveries are on the wrong chassis etc., - most purchasers of them either don’t know, or do know (me included) that there are those errors but can live with them.

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, john new said:

That has been the case for years with 4-wheel wagons as most PO liveries are on the wrong chassis etc., - most purchasers of them either don’t know, or do know (me included) that there are those errors but can live with them.

 

But should customer ignorance be an excuse? It sounds more like manufacturer arrogance to me. I'd be offended. (Frequently am!)

Edited December 19, 2021 by Compound2632

[turbos]

15 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What's missing is a "train set" approach, such as Triang had over half a century ago - engine plus a couple of appropriate carriages (within the limits of the economics of the age). At the very least, an appropriate goods brake could be produced together with each goods engine.

This has been available for quite a while.

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, turbos said:

This has been available for quite a while.

 

But that's not a pre-grouping train pack. The carriages are BR Mk1s for heaven's sake! The very antithesis of pre-group.

[phil-b259]

43 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But should customer ignorance be an excuse? It sounds more like manufacturer arrogance to me. I'd be offended. (Frequently am!)

 

A bit of both.

 

However if people continue to buy inaccurate / generic / hybrid / products then a manufacturer would be foolish to pass up on the opportunity to make cash out of the situation. Its called capitalism...

[Compound2632]

Just now, phil-b259 said:

Its called capitalism...

 

That's an explanation but not a justification!

[Darius43]

And now for something completely different - the subject of this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

PS - some Ratio LMS/LNWR coach kits are on their way.  Christmas project.

[ikks]

1 hour ago, Darius43 said:

And now for something completely different - the subject of this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

PS - some Ratio LMS/LNWR coach kits are on their way.  Christmas project.

How beautiful is that!!

Mike

[Steamport Southport]

5 hours ago, turbos said:

Manufacturers prefer to have an actual prototype they can 3d scan as this picks up some subtleties not always apparent in drawings. After 3d scanning they then adjust the scan to remove ripples and bulges from flat or smooth surfaces and make certain changes that scaling down and manufacturing require.

 I’m surprised Hornby have never produced any of the LNWR royal train carriages in the NRM collection, Hornby always seemed to have an obsession with producing anything slightly connected to royalty. Maybe we’ll see them in a future Locomtion special edition.

 

Brian.

 

I can only think of a handful of RTR models that have actually been made by scanning and most of those were by smaller manufacturers.

 

Rapido scanned the APT-E and Stirling Single. But didn't scan the 16XX or J70 (for obvious reasons). ISTR DJM scanned the Class 71.

 

 

Hornby doesn't do it and neither does Bachmann. Likewise Heljan and Dapol.

 

 

Jason

[Darius43]

10 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Hornby doesn't do it and neither does Bachmann. Likewise Heljan and Dapol.

 

 

Jason

I’m pretty certain that 3D scanning was shown on the recent Hornby Model World programme - albeit for a Scalextrix car rather than a railway prototype.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[john new]

10 minutes ago, Darius43 said:

I’m pretty certain that 3D scanning was shown on the recent Hornby Model World programme - albeit for a Scalextrix car rather than a railway prototype.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

They did, and IIRC also with the both the WW1 & jet fighter plane kits.