Accurascale's First Steam Locomotive; GWR Collett 78xx Manor Class!

[46444]

4 hours ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Hi Chilly,

 

Yes, most likely our second run.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

 

Along with 7823 Hook Norton Brewery in lined late crest green of course...

 

I may have ordered one or was it two by the way? 

 

Great Western news from the Accurascale team. A much needed and appreciated GWR 4-6-0.

 

Congratulations on this announcement. 

 

Cheers, 

 

Mark

 

Here's to a 10xx County eventually from the Accurascale stable..

[Ventnor]

3 hours ago, cornelius said:

 

Certainly wouldn't say no to one of these

 

https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=100941

Or one of the L&LSR Hudswell Clarke 4-6-2 tanks..............and Tralee & Dingle locos with a whole set of rollingstock!! I'll stop now!!

 

Andy. 

[David Stannard]

12 hours ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Not a chance, sorry! All way too different for it to be viable for us I'm afraid.

 

Cheers

 

Fran

That always tends to scare off anyone contemplating it.

[TheSignalEngineer]

14 hours ago, Axlebox said:

..but just look whats behind the tender!

 

No excuse now lads.

I'll take a pack of three please.

[57xx]

I missed this announcement the other day and only spotted something by chance in another thread where someone mention "the Accurascale Manor". "A what??" I thought, before coming over to investigate. It's the last major loco purchase I actually want and like bloody buses these things, wait years for Bachmann to retool their and then two others come in quick succession.

The model and specs look nice but I've already put a deposit down on the Dapol.  I would need a good reason to jump ship (maybe if Dapol don't sort out the gearing or decide to go coreless) and pay extra. I'll be keeping an eye on both from now on, who knows....

[BMacdermott]

18 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

I'll take a pack of three please.

 

Hello everyone

 

Just to add to the comments of Axlebox and TheSignalEngineer (but without wishing to go off topic!), the Conflat L and Containers have always been in the upper echelons of (what was) The 00  Wishlist Poll.

 

Brian 

[TheSignalEngineer]

47 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Conflat L and Containers have always been in the upper echelons of (what was) The 00  Wishlist Poll.

And don't forget the afterlives including conversions to shunting runners, S&T cable drum wagons, barrier wagons for towing EMUs and C&W coach bogie transporters for those into the diseasel and lectrickery eras.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, atom3624 said:

....QC is critical, and we're seeing an increasing number of 'problems' with the ever-increasing complexities of modern model locomotives.

I hope this is high on the production considerations.

Can't wait for this and great to see a model that will be using a metal gear set instead of plastic, had two failures on my Hby. W/C 'Plymouth' one gear set only lasting an hour after being returned.  Lost all faith in Hby. non swivelling pony trucks on 4-6-2's, poor quality wheel alignment etc.  Even my 2 month old from new King Henry jerks at times from slow start.

 

Also not using a coreless motor, was going to get the Bac 94xx to replace my old Wills metal one which died when I dropped it, but to many videos seem to show poor slow running esp. on 2 to 2.5 radius which I now have to have, which could be down to motor or poor drivetrain build quality.  My 57xx and SR N class are perfect runners at all speeds, but other posts seem to indicate Bach. going downhill. I'm not technically competent/minded at repairing models and over the years have just binned some Hby. models. that have 'died' By comparison my 66yrs old Triang Princess Elizabeth and yellow and blue USA style streamliner that I have, and get out now and then and have had since I was 3yrs, still charge around as good as ever, the streamliner still has the headlight working!  I did ask Hby. when I sent Plymouth off to Margate for1st time failure why not use metal gear sets, 'cos it would cost £12 more'. I'd pay that I replied.

[Miss Prism]

A query about the blastpipe mods. We know they were proved in 1952, but I understand they didn't start to be rolled out until 'after July 1954' - feels a bit like BR(W) didn't attach much urgency to the changes. I think I saw (can't find it now) a fat chimney example in a pic dated 1958, which could be a typo of course. How long did the blastpipe program take?
 

[Coach bogie]

I do not have an answer, though there were blastpipe/steaming tails being conducted on several classes, standards, County, Hall, Kings, V2 and Duke of Gloucester. Maybe Sammy Ell and his team wanted data on a variety of classes before making a final decision.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

A query about the blastpipe mods. We know they were proved in 1952, but I understand they didn't start to be rolled out until 'after July 1954' - feels a bit like BR(W) didn't attach much urgency to the changes. I think I saw (can't find it now) a fat chimney example in a pic dated 1958, which could be a typo of course. How long did the blastpipe program take?
 

Assuming published photos are accurately dated (so treat with care) a very quick scan of one book shows two engines definitely dealt with by mid 1953 and quite a few by mid 1954 but one which had still not been done in 1955.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

I'll take a pack of three please.

And just look at what is ahead of the tender.  Now who is making a very detailed version of that tender, hmm    Although no doubt 'somebody else' will claim it as 'their' model.

[57xx]

19 hours ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Not a chance, sorry! All way too different for it to be viable for us I'm afraid.

 

Cheers

 

Fran

 

You don't have to make every single variation, just a small handful of the most common will do. Sure, people will froth and whine, but they'll end up buying them anyway, they won't be able to help themselves!

[57xx]

On 01/02/2021 at 17:29, The Black Hat said:

But - it is a body blow to Bachmann who now have a competitor aiming for the same workhorse steam engines they always claimed as their territory and with other modern wagons done that would have been prime Bachmann territory too you can see them reeling from this. Fact is - its business and like Simon for Hornby stood fast defending some catalogue items from other competitors going for them - Bachmann now face the daunting prospect of their catalogue that has been popular before being cherry picked off by others and them unable to respond effectively due to things taking ages to come to market.  

 

Where have Bachmann ever claimed a product as "their territory"? We know Hornby have form for it but I've never seen anything like that from Bachmann. All they done is sat on their arse for years not bothering to re-tool or re-chassis the Mainline Manor. Hardly a body blow, if they wanted the market they could've done something about it. They only have themselves to blame for two other companies coming in to mop up with superior products.

[Accurascale Fran]

3 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

A query about the blastpipe mods. We know they were proved in 1952, but I understand they didn't start to be rolled out until 'after July 1954' - feels a bit like BR(W) didn't attach much urgency to the changes. I think I saw (can't find it now) a fat chimney example in a pic dated 1958, which could be a typo of course. How long did the blastpipe program take?
 

 

Hi @Miss Prism,

 

According to Peto's register, Manor 7818 entered Swindon Factory in January 1952 and received modified blastpipe (with smaller diameter jumper ring), narrower chimney, revised firebars and enlarged air space through the grate. The alterations were obviously considered a success and by March 1954 a further ten engines had been given the upgrades, Nos. 7800, 7802, 7803, 7808, 7809, 7823, 7824, 7826, 7827 and 7829. Peto doesn't give a date for when the remaining 19 locomotives had been outshopped but it should be possible to ascertain this from photos and records of works visits for heavy overhauls. We are not sure what the final locomotive was but there is a photo of No. 7805 Broome Manor at Newport in April 1957 in Lawrence Waters's book and Peto's Register says this didn't receive its next heavy intermediate until September 1959 (with a picture of it afterwards gleaming in lined green as well). We've not found a picture of one later than that yet! 

 

Hope this helps,

 

Fran

[atom3624]

Will it have an opening smokebox door, showing the blastpipe and boiler tubes .... just asking?  

 

Al.

[The Black Hat]

2 hours ago, 57xx said:

 

Where have Bachmann ever claimed a product as "their territory"? We know Hornby have form for it but I've never seen anything like that from Bachmann. All they done is sat on their arse for years not bothering to re-tool or re-chassis the Mainline Manor. Hardly a body blow, if they wanted the market they could've done something about it. They only have themselves to blame for two other companies coming in to mop up with superior products.

 

I guess you missed the whole Bachmann vs Hattons issue over the class 66 then. Can you imagine being at Bachmann reading about Accurascale announcing the Deltic, then the GBRf wagons (I bet they were looking at them), then the class 37... I can imagine lots of sighs and frustration at the blue box company as another chunk is taken from their range. Yes Bachmann have themselves to blame over selections, how they managed to get their parent company to authorise production and from what I hear - how Bachmann went about choosing what model to make next, how much of them and in what livery. Interestingly some of those at Bachmann that made decisions in recent years (and the consequnces of them are still playing through the production and delivery chain) have now left and in some cases taken up roles with Accurascale on an advisory role. To be honest, I think Accurascale can benefit of their contacts and network they have, but need to stick to their ideas on productions, choices for models and standards - as they are already ahead of those giving them the advice on what to do next.   

[McC]

A close-up of the BR era Smokebox door (which is a dedicated part, as is the number plate). The two handles are to provide variety too (the second will be in the accessory bag)

[Mark]

43 minutes ago, McC said:

A close-up of the BR era Smokebox door (which is a dedicated part, as is the number plate). The two handles are to provide variety too (the second will be in the accessory bag)

Nice that you have captured the bevelled edge on the hinge. I had to write a CNC program for mine.

 

[57xx]

On 01/02/2021 at 13:00, Miss Prism said:

Let's hope the 'wonderfully smooth operating motor' will get a wonderfully realistic gear ratio. I feel the 'Gearing arranged so locomotive can achieve a scale top speed of 90 mph' is inappropriate. Manors ran out of puff above 40mph...

 

I would think the amount of people wanting 90mph scale speed versus smooth, usable low speed is very small. Anytime I see people reviewing locos, it's always the low speed capability that gets scrutinised, very very rare to see anyone waxing lyrical about top speed.

[Roy Langridge]

2 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

I would think the amount of people wanting 90mph scale speed versus smooth, usable low speed is very small. Anytime I see people reviewing locos, it's always the low speed capability that gets scrutinised, very very rare to see anyone waxing lyrical about top speed.

Sadly that doesn’t stop the minority who do want to run at a scale top speed being very vocal when it isn’t achievable. 
 

Roy

[Mel_H]

On 01/02/2021 at 14:46, Global said:

Whilst personally I have no interest in steam and so this isn’t for me - I’m sure it’ll be an absolute cracker for those who are! 
 

In terms of copying Dapol, as you say the announcement clearly shows this model has been in development since 2019 - and what decade was the, very likely inferior, Dapol model likely to arrive?!

 

I’m firmly of the belief that no company has the right to exclusivity - but if Accurascale continue with the quality and value of their products as far I’m concerned they can duplicate what they like as I know where my money is heading!
 

Keep em coming I say, whether that be steam diesel or electric! 
 

 

 

While Dapol can be 'hit and miss' with both detail and/or paint finish, its latest GW 2-6-0 has had good reviews, despite using its 'trademark' odd half-and-half stick on chimney which does look odd and 'toy like'. Shame.

[mdvle]

19 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

I would think the amount of people wanting 90mph scale speed versus smooth, usable low speed is very small. Anytime I see people reviewing locos, it's always the low speed capability that gets scrutinised, very very rare to see anyone waxing lyrical about top speed.

 

And the majority of the market, just playing trains, isn't typically reviewing locos - but they do want to choose a loco and run it at whatever speed they feel like.  And for many of them, not being the experts that are on here, they will see the Manor as a typical tender loco and expect it to go reasonably fast regardless of what it did in reality - and if it doesn't go fast when they hook it up to their train of Mk1 coaches they will be upset.

[Dunsignalling]

There's another thing to be considered regarding gearing. Manors often double headed with other classes, so the performance needs to be a reasonably close match.

 

One area where spur gearing would score over worm drive. The faster train engine could just do everything.

 

Mind you, Manors were main line engines, slow running should only take precedence over a good spread if your layout is a terminus, heritage railway or MPD.

 

A scale 90 may not be essential, but 60 probably is for a lot of potential buyers.

 

John

[Mel_H]

Second run material? The 'famous' 7816 Frilsham Manor that survived well into BR days with smokebox numberplate, and its GWR lettered tender