Thought experiment - if you were starting an entirely new range of UK model trains, what would you start?

[RJS1977]

1 minute ago, whart57 said:

 

The interesting thing here is that the proprietary ranges in OO and N never followed this. Hornby Dublo never had an 0-6-0 tank until they produced the R1 (now Wrenn R1) with 2-rail. It's a mystery to me why Hornby chose that prototype, a loco even SECR aficionados struggle to justify, rather than a pannier or something else more common. Triang did of course produce the Jinty and used the chassis in something that vaguely looked like a 4F, and produced a nice looking L1 4-4-0, but again their range was heavily towards express engines. Triang's TT offerings were similarly skewed. There was a BR Standard express plus one from the SR and GWR. After that there was the LMS Jinty, no tender engine to go with it though, and a GWR Prairie. Impossible to put together a coherent loco stud for a serious layout though.

 

And much the same issues with 'Railroad' now :-(

 

However we are seeing the commissioners "start small" - Hattons industrials, Kernow well tanks, Rails Terrier.

[eldomtom2]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think the original post was seeking ideas for totally new scale/gauge/prototype combinations rather than EM/P4 wish-listing.

My actual intent was along the lines of RJS1977's post - what standard gauge models to produce if you're starting from a blank slate - but the thread seems to have taken a life of its own.

[whart57]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

 

However we are seeing the commissioners "start small" - Hattons industrials, Kernow well tanks, Rails Terrier.

 

Isn't that because the OO market is already pretty saturated and those small locos are the small gap still available?

 

I would have thought though that the choice of locomotives and stock would be different for each scale, mainly because each scale has a different purpose and a different target. If you choose to do British outline Z gauge then your market is those who want to have the Settle and Carlisle in the spare bedroom. No place there for yard shunters or branch line trundlers.

 

O gauge would be the other way about. Few - very few - have the space for a mainline O gauge layout indoors, so you either cater for the garden railway modeller - which probably means the mid sized engines like Manors or Black 5s - or do as Dapol is doing and limit yourself to the smallest tank engines.

 

I don't think anyone has mentioned Gauge 1 though. That might be interesting, though complicated. Away from Britain something like the Prussian T3 or Dutch 7700 class would make a brilliant Gauge 1 model for indoor use. A small 0-6-0T with outside cylinders and lovely waggly Allen valve gear. I can't think of a British equivalent given the British preference for inside cylinders

[RJS1977]

30 minutes ago, whart57 said:

 

Isn't that because the OO market is already pretty saturated and those small locos are the small gap still available?

 

 

I did wonder that, but Hornby already had a Terrier in their range, albeit one designed in the 1980s. However Hornby and to a lesser extent Bachmann have other locos in their ranges which were designed decades ago. Why did Rails choose the Terrier rather than those other models? Probably because it's something small, development and assembly costs are cheaper so there's less financial risk involved.

[Dunsignalling]

44 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

My actual intent was along the lines of RJS1977's post - what standard gauge models to produce if you're starting from a blank slate - but the thread seems to have taken a life of its own.

Thanks for the clarification. Presumably a start-up rather than an instant challenger to Hornby, then.

 

Assuming 4mm scale, we've seen obscure late-surviving BR prototypes and growing numbers of industrial locos, so a wholly different niche is tricky to imagine.

 

However, the sudden vogue for generic 4 and 6-wheeled coaches raises possibilities in the pre-group area. The choice of locos is almost infinite though any newcomer is in danger of Hornby attempting to exterminate a potential future competitor. 

 

Moving up-market as exemplified by the BR Type 2 diesels from SLW seemed to work well for them, but when Hatton's tried a similar strategy with the Class 66 it attracted unwelcome reactions from both existing producers of the class. Presumably, they were considered big enough to threaten the status quo where SLW were not.

 

Prototype choices, and ambitions as to market positioning and volume therefore require careful consideration.

 

Pre-grouping items would be led by the producer's own tastes and preferences. One route would be to concentrate on one or two companies in order to develop a coherent range in a reasonable timescale. Another would be to choose an independent locomotive builder that supplied numerous railways with variations on standard products. Sharp, Stewart & Co., or Beyer Peacock spring most readily to mind. That brings up my suggestion for first loco, the BP "Metropolitan" 4-4-0T. Closest thing to a "generic" loco to go with generic coaches, but also perhaps most at risk of red-box gazumping?

 

John

Edited January 30, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[whart57]

6 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I did wonder that, but Hornby already had a Terrier in their range, albeit one designed in the 1980s.

 

The Rails Terrier and the Hornby upgrade of their own apparently caused quite a bit of bad feeling between the two companies.

 

 

[PatB]

Well, if you're pitching a range at people who might build a layout, rather than put one of everything on a shelf, I think you need to initially offer enough stock to create a complete, coherent train. Preferably two; one passenger, one goods. So that would mean, for the steam era, a loco at home on goods or passenger working, a brake coach, a couple of different goods wagons and a brake van. Funny enough, pretty much what Triang offered when TT3 was launched. Airfix also followed a similar principle in the 70s, with their B-set and autocoach offering two complete, and more or less compatible, passenger trains with only two sets of tooling. Their choice of a 14xx was sensible too, as a single loco could provide the entire motive power allocation for a small BLT layout. Their diesel power choice of a 31 also made sense, as the prototype was pretty ubiquitous and would fit almost anywhere. I'm not so sure about their Mk2d(?) coach, though, as it didn't really fit with anything else in their initial range. 

 

Whilst I'm not fully familiar with what's been going on, I get the impression that G3 suppliers have also leaned heavily towards GW tank locos, B-set/autocoaches and GW  Toad brake vans, again allowing the creation of complete, sensible trains from limited tooling.

 

I think it's also important to start with modest stock. As we're talking about a new (or, at least, previously unserved with modern rtr) scale here, the intending modeller must buy at least one complete train before they can operate their layout. The cost of doing so must not be so high as to put too many off. Obviously, what cost is reasonable will vary with scale. In 00 it seems that GBP200 for a modest train (loco and 2 coaches or 4 wagons) can get you started with nice quality models, so that might be considered a reasonable benchmark, scaled appropriately for scale, as it were. 

[D9020 Nimbus]

Airfix were the only manufacturer to have a rational approach to loco choice — the idea was to have a range of locos for each of the "big 4” — small tank, large tank, small tender and large tender locos — but this was never finished when Airfix went out of business. The GWR contingent was 14xx, 61xx, Dean Goods, Castle — the Dean was tooled by Airfix but introduced by Mainline. The LMS was represented by a 4F and Royal Scot; a Schools had been planned but was cancelled when Hornby introduced their model. An ex-LSWR O2 and G6 were planned but never tooled; nor was the LNER B1, though it was later introduced by Mainline, from Kader tooling.

[Nova Scotian]

I would leave a large manufacturer to set out on my own. I'd promise a large range of locomotives and rolling stock, crowd-funding for the production of each. I would ensure the occasional spat with a factory, so I tie up customer funds in un-delivered product. I'd use crowdfunds from one project to deliver another. Multiple scales, of course. Flashy announcements. And I'd copyright all my product.

What can go wrong?

[whart57]

7 minutes ago, Nova Scotian said:

I would leave a large manufacturer to set out on my own. I'd promise a large range of locomotives and rolling stock, crowd-funding for the production of each. I would ensure the occasional spat with a factory, so I tie up customer funds in un-delivered product. I'd use crowdfunds from one project to deliver another. Multiple scales, of course. Flashy announcements. And I'd copyright all my product.

What can go wrong?

You're wasted here. Have you tried being a PPE supplier? 

[Dunsignalling]

44 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Airfix were the only manufacturer to have a rational approach to loco choice — the idea was to have a range of locos for each of the "big 4” — small tank, large tank, small tender and large tender locos — but this was never finished when Airfix went out of business. The GWR contingent was 14xx, 61xx, Dean Goods, Castle — the Dean was tooled by Airfix but introduced by Mainline. The LMS was represented by a 4F and Royal Scot; a Schools had been planned but was cancelled when Hornby introduced their model. An ex-LSWR O2 and G6 were planned but never tooled; nor was the LNER B1, though it was later introduced by Mainline, from Kader tooling.

I think the Lord Nelson (replacing the Schools?) and Bulleid coaches, as later released by Bachmann, were begun by Airfix, but weren't sufficiently advanced to allow production in the short time remaining to Mainline.

 

Possibly the Thompson coaches, too.

 

John

Edited January 30, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Gibbo675]

Hi Folks

 

This thread does seem to be stuck in a rut with the discussion noting all the usual prototypes repeated ad infinitum to perhaps be produced in slightly different scales and track gauges. So far one of the most original suggestions has come from @The Johnster who suggested GWR broad gauge.

 

I have to say that should I go to an exhibition and see a broad gauge layout I would be interested for it would represent something that is quite apart from the usual prototypes repeated ad infinitum what ever scale it might be modelled in.

 

I would suggest that anything from 1825-1860 would be interesting from the point of view of it being quite different and I would suggest that S gauge ay be a suitable size for the reason that the locomotives would be big enough to pull a decent train while being small enough to run full length trains in a confined space. A six coach train and locomotive form the 1830's is approximately 2' long or to put it another way, a slight longer than a two car DMU.

 

There were various unusual looking locomotives such as the Crampton types even Stephenson's Locomotion No.1 lasted until 1857 and so covered quite a long operating period as did many other locomotives form the period beginning 1825 onwards.

 

Here is one of my scratch built L&MR first class coaches:

 

 

Gibbo.

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, PatB said:

Well, if you're pitching a range at people who might build a layout, rather than put one of everything on a shelf, I think you need to initially offer enough stock to create a complete, coherent train. Preferably two; one passenger, one goods. So that would mean, for the steam era, a loco at home on goods or passenger working, a brake coach, a couple of different goods wagons and a brake van. Funny enough, pretty much what Triang offered when TT3 was launched. Airfix also followed a similar principle in the 70s, with their B-set and autocoach offering two complete, and more or less compatible, passenger trains with only two sets of tooling. Their choice of a 14xx was sensible too, as a single loco could provide the entire motive power allocation for a small BLT layout. Their diesel power choice of a 31 also made sense, as the prototype was pretty ubiquitous and would fit almost anywhere. I'm not so sure about their Mk2d(?) coach, though, as it didn't really fit with anything else in their initial range. 

 

Whilst I'm not fully familiar with what's been going on, I get the impression that G3 suppliers have also leaned heavily towards GW tank locos, B-set/autocoaches and GW  Toad brake vans, again allowing the creation of complete, sensible trains from limited tooling.

 

I think it's also important to start with modest stock. As we're talking about a new (or, at least, previously unserved with modern rtr) scale here, the intending modeller must buy at least one complete train before they can operate their layout. The cost of doing so must not be so high as to put too many off. Obviously, what cost is reasonable will vary with scale. In 00 it seems that GBP200 for a modest train (loco and 2 coaches or 4 wagons) can get you started with nice quality models, so that might be considered a reasonable benchmark, scaled appropriately for scale, as it were. 

On existing form, new entrants go in for gap-filling in the existing market, rather than attempting to launch a coherent range in one go. Obviously, it requires rather less in up front costs.

 

The latter might be desirable, even in 4mm scale, but it would only be essential if launching a new scale. 

 

John

[PatB]

8 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

On existing form, new entrants go in for gap-filling in the existing market, rather than attempting to launch a coherent range in one go. Obviously, it requires rather less in up front costs.

 

The latter might be desirable, even in 4mm scale, but it would only be essential if launching a new scale. 

 

John

True, but I got the impression the OP was proposing a hypothetical exercise rather more ambitious than gap-filling in an existing, or, at least, well catered fo, scale. Something more akin to what Triang attempted in TT3, or Marklin succeeded at with Z.

 

Not that there are that many big gaps in available scales. I think there might be a small market in British Z. N is, of course, fairly well provided for, ditto 00 and, increasingly, 0. I don't think there's any meaningful RTR in British G1, but G3 seems to be doing quite well.

 

So for already established, but non-rtr, scales we're left with 3mm/TT3, which I quite like, but which even the then industrial might of Triang failed to succeed at. It's said that the advent of N killed it but, realistically, Triang TT was dead in the water years before building a reasonable British N layout became a practical RTR proposition. 

 

Then there's S. A nice size, but the established standards are decidedly fine scale. Great for those dedicated enthusiasts currently working in it, but probably not feasible for getting the required "large tender locomotives" round the sort of curves the mass market has room for. 

 

As noted above, there may be some scope for RTR British outline G1. At this point, I think we need to accept it would be a garden scale for the majority of users, but I also think that it needs to be possible to get an 0-6-0T and 4w wagons reliably round an LGB settrack oval to allow a small indoor roundy. 

 

G2 has sunk without trace, presumably as it's so close to G1. Being a contrarian, I rather like it though. 

 

If we're going big, how about a model (rather than model engineering) 31/2" gauge? Hornby's Rocket of 40 years ago showed that it might be possible. Riffing off Gibbo's suggestion of RTR early locos, maybe a range could start with a Rocket that actually works (probably an ideal candidate for battery powered rc) and appropriate coaches. In 3/4" to the foot, I suspect that it might be possible to make Locomotion's valve gear work reliably, so maybe No1 and a chaldron wagon as the next release. Didn't Airfix offer a static kit of one of Trevithick's engines in a suitable scale? You never know, there might be some useable tooling at the back of a cupboard somewhere .

 

The size of early locos and their trains makes a layout in a modest space just about achievable in so large a scale. Larger and more modern locos are, of course, possible but would certainly require a move to the garden. I don't see why, using model rather than model engineering techniques, it wouldn't be possible to make even a Pacific go round settrack type curves. Settrack, or something remarkably like it, is, of course already available in 5" gauge, thanks to the growth in battery electric passenger carrying railways, so a lighter "scenic" version in 31/2" should be doable. 

 

Having used the preceding paragraphs to organise my own thoughts, had I unlimited wherewithal, I think I'd develop a range of "scenic" 31/2" gauge equipment, roughly paralleling Triang's TT3 efforts, though with some refinement. Probably starting with a 57xc Pannier, B-set coach, open wagon, van and brake. Goods stock can then come one at a time. However, loco introductions would need to come with appropriate stock, so an A4, for example, would be launched alongside Gresley teak composite and brake third, with additional coach types becoming available piece by piece. 

 

Detail standard would be what I'd think of as "intermediate". Physical proportions, wheelbase and such would be correct, but, recognising the realities of mainstream garden use, there would be a lack if tiny twiddly bits. Such might be offered as an optional detailing pack for those who really want them. There might need to be some compromises as I'd be aiming to get all locos and stock around the equivalent of R2. So 7' radius when scaled up, allowing a roundy in even a fairly narrow suburban garden. 

 

Because the target market would probably not have built a garden layout before, thought must be given to providing relatively simply constructed baseboards and infrastructure. Perhaps a range of modular boards matching the settrack geometry, with options of post mounting or fence mounting (although, for models of the likely weight, the average fence might be a bit flimsy, and noisy for the neighbours).

 

Pie in the sky, obviously, but fun to contemplate. 

[009 micro modeller]

6 hours ago, PatB said:

Didn't Airfix offer a static kit of one of Trevithick's engines in a suitable scale?

 

They did, although I’m not sure it’s quite as wide as 3 1/2 inch gauge and it’s designed for plateway track.

[PatB]

18 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

They did, although I’m not sure it’s quite as wide as 3 1/2 inch gauge and it’s designed for plateway track.

Ah yes. I've looked it up now and it was 1/32, so no head start available there. 

[whart57]

8 hours ago, PatB said:

The size of early locos and their trains makes a layout in a modest space just about achievable in so large a scale.

 

 

This suggests an idea. Possibly not in 3½" gauge but in Gauge 3, which is after all the same scale as LGB so can utilise figures and other accessories from the LGB range. Rocket is the obvious loco given that everyone has heard of it, but maybe Rocket's successor, Planet, would be a better choice. Or "Lion", aka Titfield Thunderbolt. As these are not six coupled wheelbases - a 2-2-0 and a 0-4-2 - getting round sharp curves should not be a problem. Battery powered RC is an obvious route, but live steam might also be feasible

[009 micro modeller]

3 hours ago, PatB said:

Ah yes. I've looked it up now and it was 1/32, so no head start available there. 

 

OK - I have a part-built version of that kit at home but I’m not sure it even states a scale on it.

 

Before anyone suggests plateway track as an idea, it would be interesting (but possibly not very reliable) but I have a feeling it has already been done in reasonably easy kit form, although I can’t remember who by.

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

Or "Lion", aka Titfield Thunderbolt.

 

You could do two liveries - one as Lion and one in Titfield condition. And it would be more interesting than previous Titfield Thunderbolt train sets which have inevitably featured a GWR loco, rather than the Thunderbolt itself as played by Lion.

[RJS1977]

21 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Folks

 

This thread does seem to be stuck in a rut with the discussion noting all the usual prototypes repeated ad infinitum to perhaps be produced in slightly different scales and track gauges. So far one of the most original suggestions has come from @The Johnster who suggested GWR broad gauge.

 

 

I've sometimes wondered if there would be mileage in a range of 21mm gauge mechanisms, which would be suitable for:

 

GWR Broad Gauge in TT

Irish Broad Gauge in 4mm scale

Isle of Man and Irish Narrow Gauge in 7mm scale.

 

 

[009 micro modeller]

49 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I've sometimes wondered if there would be mileage in a range of 21mm gauge mechanisms, which would be suitable for:

 

GWR Broad Gauge in TT

Irish Broad Gauge in 4mm scale

Isle of Man and Irish Narrow Gauge in 7mm scale.

 

 

 

And close enough to 2ft in 10mm scale, or 2’ 3” in 1:32. Not sure what sort of mechanism would fit all those options though.

[whart57]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I've sometimes wondered if there would be mileage in a range of 21mm gauge mechanisms, which would be suitable for:

 

GWR Broad Gauge in TT

Irish Broad Gauge in 4mm scale

Isle of Man and Irish Narrow Gauge in 7mm scale.

 

 

 

The problem would be that those are three very different wheel profiles.

GWR Broad Gauge in TT     -     wheel thickness 1.7mm, flange depth 0.5mm (this is 3mm finescale, what Nic Salzmann works to)

Irish Broad Gauge in 4mm scale   -    wheel thickness 2.3mm, flange depth 0.55mm (EMGS standard)

Isle of Man and Irish Narrow Gauge in 7mm scale - wheel thickness 2.9mm, flange depth 0.7mm (NMRA On3 standard)

 

[009 micro modeller]

6 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

The problem would be that those are three very different wheel profiles.

GWR Broad Gauge in TT     -     wheel thickness 1.7mm, flange depth 0.5mm (this is 3mm finescale, what Nic Salzmann works to)

Irish Broad Gauge in 4mm scale   -    wheel thickness 2.3mm, flange depth 0.55mm (EMGS standard)

Isle of Man and Irish Narrow Gauge in 7mm scale - wheel thickness 2.9mm, flange depth 0.7mm (NMRA On3 standard)

 

 

Not to mention the wheel size and arrangement. There might be some commonality in this aspect between 4mm Irish gauge and 021 but I can imagine that the wheel sizes and arrangements needed for Brunel gauge in 3mm scale would be very different.

 

As an aside, is that NMRA standard for 021 or is it actually for American 0n3, i.e. 1:48 on 3/4” gauge?

[whart57]

9 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Not to mention the wheel size and arrangement. There might be some commonality in this aspect between 4mm Irish gauge and 021 but I can imagine that the wheel sizes and arrangements needed for Brunel gauge in 3mm scale would be very different.

 

As an aside, is that NMRA standard for 021 or is it actually for American 0n3, i.e. 1:48 on 3/4” gauge?

 

It's American On3, the NMRA standards are the easiest to find on the web and I only wanted to make an illustrative point.

 

Good point about the wheel arrangement too. I have been looking for suitable chassis in N to build some meter gauge locos in 3mm scale. I haven't found any. Nor have I found any OO chassis that would be suitable for this if I went for 1:64 scale.

[009 micro modeller]

10 minutes ago, whart57 said:

It's American On3, the NMRA standards are the easiest to find on the web and I only wanted to make an illustrative point.

 

And actually I’m not absolutely sure there is a standard for 021, I’m not sure how many people actually use it at present.

 

12 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Good point about the wheel arrangement too. I have been looking for suitable chassis in N to build some meter gauge locos in 3mm scale. I haven't found any. Nor have I found any OO chassis that would be suitable for this if I went for 1:64 scale.

 

What are you looking for exactly? I would have thought there might be a reasonable choice in N. When I wrote that I was thinking of the broad gauge locos with single wheels (not typically seen on 3ft gauge locos) or those with more conventional wheel arrangements but very small wheels (particularly when scaled down to 3mm scale).