Jump to content
 

New announcements from Bachmann


Andy Y

Recommended Posts

Difficult to source accurate information on this but one source quotes NER route mileage at 1,757 miles while another quotes nearly 5,000 miles (which is clearly incorrect!!!, but might be a misreading of track miles) but whatever the North Eastern was definitely in the top group of the Pre-Group companies - of which the GWR boasted 2,900 route miles. Another source - again somewhat suspect quotes NBR route mileage as 2,739 (possibly a misreading of track miles I would think) while GNoSr route mileage is quoted as 334 which again sounds rather a lot. Whatever - the main fact is that none of those companies boasted a greater route mileage than the Pre-Group GWR let alone the additional mileage it gained at the Grouping.

 

I'm sure the key point for producing LNER locos is the one of which to chose (once you've got past the fancy ECML express classes) and in terms of this year's releases Bachmann have probably made the best initial selection in going for the relatively widespread J11 which migrated beyond its GCR home. But I'm saying that from the Swindon side of the fence (where, as it happens there is still a pretty limited choice among the classes which formed a major part of the GW/WR fleet, i.e. the tank engines).

 

The fact we all have to face is that we are lucky if something is made which does suit our modelling interest and we have become increasingly lucky, and looked after, over the last couple of decades or so and if we support manufacturers hopefully that situation will continue.

 

From memory - and it's a long time ago that I saw figures quoted - the pre Group GWR had just over 2000 route miles and was the biggest company in terms of route miles, the LNWR had 1800+ route miles, but was the biggest company in terms of traffic, track, miles stock, staff etc, and the Midland and NER came next . I'm not sure whether the NER was 3rd or 4th , but 1757 route miles sounds about right . I'm guessing , but I'd guess at around 1000 route miles for the NBR - but 334 route miles sounds plausible for the GNoSR , which had a lot of very long branches (eg the Ballater branch was almost 30 miles on its own, and Peterhead /Fraserburgh must have been similar) (And you can throw in an extra 100 miles or so for the H&BR)

 

That puts the combined total for NE/NBR/GNoSR/HBR (ie the LNER excluding the Southern Area) at around 3100 route miles. I don't know the post 1923 figure for the GW but it would have been pretty similar? (50% increase on pre Grouping?)

 

For that area if you exclude the big ECML locos (Pacifics, V2s, K3s) and the general service Group Standard classes which got everywhere (B1 , L1 , V1/V3, J39, J94, Y1/Y3) the "native" motive power available RTR comprises the J72, the very approximate Hornby J83 and er that's it . Hence the gripes. It's true that the D49s were not in practise found in the Southern Area, and that J39 and V1/V3 were largely found north of Doncaster but these are old tooling anyway.

 

5 years ago those modelling from Doncaster southward felt a bit frustrated - the ECML big stuff was available but not much else. Now its improved dramatically - 3 ex GC types, the L1 (Stratford, Neasden, Colwick) a new B17 (GE/GC) plus a new B1 and the Sentinel . The only big gaps really now are the 0-6-0Ts and some of the suburban tanks (N2s are not readily available , and N7s and GE 2-4-2Ts are missing) - though the classic GE branchline triple - Buckjumper, Gobbler, J15 is still missing. The GC Section has just been handed to us on a plate - and EM1 and EM2 can be added to what's available

 

Go north of Doncaster and they feel they are largely still waiting (though B1, L1, Y1/Y3 , D11/2 do help)

 

The GW doesn't have this issue : Castles, Stars, Halls, and Panniers were to be found alike at Birkenhead, Fishguard, Penzance, and Paddington (Though I still think Hornby need a new Pannier)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Post Group GWR is quoted in one source as 3,797 miles which sounds about right (I do have a complete breakdown for it somewhere but I don't think I'll bother to go all the way through it and then find out that I've missed some bits!

 

And as far as 'panniers' are concerned there were panniers and there were panniers - lots of different classes although much reduced in variety by the 1950s - plus of course a bit of variety in the large prairies (although there is a reasonable basis for those in the market of course. Maybe Gresley should have been keener on updating the LNER's fleet and got into standardisation before Thompson came along with that idea

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

(Though I still think Hornby need a new Pannier)

 

(wishlist mode on) If ever there was an ugly duckling that always remained an ugly duckling, but if someone were to do a r-t-r 15xx (which is way beyond my era/area) then I'd be buying one. If only for the fact that outside Walschaerts looks so alien to a copper cap!

 

Cheers,

Mick

(who once tried to marry a Jinty chassis, chopped BEC 94xx and Britannia valve gear in TT - many. many years ago)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The GW doesn't have this issue : Castles, Stars, Halls, and Panniers were to be found alike at Birkenhead, Fishguard, Penzance, and Paddington (Though I still think Hornby need a new Pannier)

... and a Star, one day (he says hopefully) ;).

 

The surfeit of choices for LNER prototypes beyond the Gresley Pacifics has long been a problem. But with O1, O4, D11/2, J11 all recently announced, (I realize these are GNR/GCR) the log jam feels like it might finally be breaking up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I wanted to say that in my earlier post but stopped short, not wanting to offend.

 

Oh, I dont want to offend Oz, believe me, but I'd like to think that folk can look at their own postings and think 'did I really need to do that'.

 

Difficult to source accurate information on this but one source quotes NER route mileage at 1,757 miles while another quotes nearly 5,000 miles (which is clearly incorrect!!!,

 

Maybe that was the mileage they had enough signal arms for?

 

 

 

:D

 

 

ne big hole, which I fondly imagined might have its turn this year is LMS design freight vehicles. There really doesn't seem to be much interest in them as seen in the wishlists over the years, but they are essential. Likewise some LMS design non-gangwayed stock. Perhaps it is just too rational to expect a range to grow in this way? (Bear in mind my interest is firstly LNER/BR(ER) but the LMS was so large a part of the UK railway scene that you never had to look far for its vehicles, even knocking twenty years after it had ceased to exist.)

 

Rest assured, they have been suggested, and in much the same breath as the LNER vehicles that seem to have done so well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that we (in our hobby) are (fairly happily) victims of two historical phenomena: loco-centric modeling and company PR.

 

In the first case I think that it is safe to say that in the past, and until recently, the locomotive was (and remains?) THE star of the show, so Barwell, Margate, etc., have emphasized producing new locomotives, comparatively neglecting rolling stock. To use a show-biz analogy we have lots of stars to admire, but very few bit-players or extras, hence being in the position of having a City to run, but little appropriate rolling stock to pull.

 

In the second case, I think that railway modeling has been significantly influenced (perhaps unconsciously) by the mighty PR machines of the GWR and to a lesser (and more recent) extent the SR. I suspect that for many laymen a Castle or Hall pulling a rake of Colletts is one of THE defining images of pre-BR/pre-war railway travel. And who hasn't seen the famous "summer comes sooner" poster? I don't think that it was merely coincidental that the iconic "Hogwarts Castle" in the Harry Potter films was a repainted Hall - reinforcing the GWR hold on the popular imagination.

 

So where to next? One significant question to ask Bachmann, Hornby et al. would be "is there a business case for concentrating purely/mostly on carriages and wagons for the next business year?", I suspect, were we lucky enough to get a reply, that the answer would be "no" Even Dapol, probably the most rolling stock oriented of the OO volume producers, seems to be expanding out of its rolling stock niche.

 

Perhaps olddudders has pointed the way by referring to the old PC kits: which had beautifully printed sides, saving the modeller the task of complicated finishes, but allowing the modeller to build the kit to his/her preferred standard. But who would take up the PC Kits' torch???

 

F

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

(wishlist mode on) If ever there was an ugly duckling that always remained an ugly duckling, but if someone were to do a r-t-r 15xx (which is way beyond my era/area) then I'd be buying one. If only for the fact that outside Walschaerts looks so alien to a copper cap!

 

Cheers,

Mick

(who once tried to marry a Jinty chassis, chopped BEC 94xx and Britannia valve gear in TT - many. many years ago)

 

Before you 'sniffed the diesel and saw sense' eh Mick?!

 

Si

Link to post
Share on other sites

... Maybe Gresley should have been keener on updating the LNER's fleet and got into standardisation before Thompson came along with that idea

Oh, but he did, to the extent that the LNER's near permanent financial difficulties permitted. Successful existing designs were perpetuated and continued to be developed: A1, B12, B16, D11, D16, J50, K3, N2, N7, O2, O4. Relatively few new classes were constructed and these were always to provide a clear advance over the existing power. Even where the new type was not a development of an existing platform (A1/P1/A3/A4/V2, K3/K4 for example) the shared component count was significant. In this respect Thompson carried on as before, the B1 explicitly presented to the board as a fusion of existing design: boiler and chassis layout from B17, cylinders and gear from K2, wheels from V2, all 'Gresley' components - and the loco worked.

 

What was never in prospect financially was a 'scrap and build' programme; but the LNER was fortunate in that the inherited locomotive stock was soundly engineered, and could largely be left to carry on as before. Starting from a base of six significant loco fleets the diversity simply had to be coped with, and this was accomplished by keeping each fleet of inherited stock on its home patch where the sparing and maintenance provision was fully in place. Not the arch-standardiser's dream, but the best that could be done with the resources to hand. And it results in the balkanised LNER, which still reflected the origin pre-group company wherever you went, and on into BR days, which was so interesting. Economically, since the goods types in particular slogged on to the end of steam in their area of origin (the NER types the last pre-group fleet still working never forget, outlasted all the 'standardised' product from other pre-group works, such as - oh - Swindon!) a conclusion is that this was money wisely not spent.

 

Even the mighty LMS fully engaged in scrap and build, could not clear out its inherited small goods locomotive stock; it too was balkanised to the end of its existence with pre-group classes, once again largely confined to their home patches by necessity. I think it was David Jenkinson who remarked of the trend among LMS modellers to ignore the old designs and have far too many of the new Stanier and his successors standard designs on their layouts. Which brings us back of course to the L&Y 2-4-2T. This is a fine choice for a 'local colour' loco. Hope it does well, and encourages the production of many more such late pre-group survivors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be a case of building up locos for one area before moving onto another. We have seen the GCR develop this way and maybe the L&YR 2-4-2T could be seen as a seed. In some ways, it might seem suprising that the GNR has not developed much beyond the Gresley Pacific.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

So where to next? One significant question to ask Bachmann, Hornby et al. would be "is there a business case for concentrating purely/mostly on carriages and wagons for the next business year?", I suspect, were we lucky enough to get a reply, that the answer would be "no" Even Dapol, probably the most rolling stock oriented of the OO volume producers, seems to be expanding out of its rolling stock niche.

F

I think the answer will always be 'no' for any manufacturer capable of getting together the design and production facility (even in China) for a loco they 'know' will sell profitably.

 

The reason - simple economics. Plucking a figure from thin air if we assume their gross profit to be, say 30% of RRP then 30% of a £150 loco is considerably more than 30% of a £15 wagon; they would have to sell 10 wagons for each loco to even up their gross profit. Now we might think it's easy to sell 10 wagons for every loco but they are immediately dealing with more bulk, more packaging and so on - perhaps an explanation, in part, of the reason for multipacks of wagons which are becoming more common?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Before you 'sniffed the diesel and saw sense' eh Mick?!

 

Si

 

I still model kettles, but they have to have air brakes, TPWS and OTMR....... :locomotive:

 

Cheers,

Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites

So where to next? One significant question to ask Bachmann, Hornby et al. would be "is there a business case for concentrating purely/mostly on carriages and wagons for the next business year?", I suspect, were we lucky enough to get a reply, that the answer would be "no" Even Dapol, probably the most rolling stock oriented of the OO volume producers, seems to be expanding out of its rolling stock niche.

 

Perhaps, but if you look at the results from annual wish list polls, every year the top twenty seems to be full of locomotives. Until consumers start to ask manufacturers for stock to go with their existing locomotives rather than keep asking for more new classes, how could we expect a manufacturer to make a business case for concentrating on rolling stock? With the MREmag / RMweb annual wish list coming up, the "next" has to start with "us" focussing on what additional stock we want our locomotives to haul. Of course sales then also have to match up to manufacturers expectations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Perhaps, but if you look at the results from annual wish list polls, every year the top twenty seems to be full of locomotives. Until consumers start to ask manufacturers for stock to go with their existing locomotives rather than keep asking for more new classes, how could we expect a manufacturer to make a business case for concentrating on rolling stock? With the MREmag / RMweb annual wish list coming up, the "next" has to start with "us" focussing on what additional stock we want our locomotives to haul. Of course sales then also have to match up to manufacturers expectations.

 

I think this may because the 'average modeler' finds kit wagons and, to a lesser extent, coaches are significantly easier than locos to build. And by that I mean put something together that runs well. Something I've yet to manage with a loco kit. Therefore I think the same 'average modeler' tends to wishlist locos before other items as these are perhaps the more off putting of items that would otherwise need kit or scratch building. Just a thought....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point - I've never considered building a locomotive myself. Of course there are probably many other reasons why locomotives are more readily requested or bought than items of freight or coaching stock. In particular, due to space contraints many people build small layouts. Motive power depots are one popular choice and such layouts have little requirement for anything other than locomotives. I assume there are also several branch lines with maybe one rake of coaching stock but half a dozen alternative locomotives bought for operational variety. The same may also be true of freight operations and many modellers are also forced to run shortened trains, which means that the rolling stock owned by the average railway modeller probably bears little resemblance to the relative proportions of the prototype. Locomotives are also potentially more popular with collectors or those who have display cases on the walls of their hobby rooms.

 

However, the point remans: if we want our manufacturers to make more freight or coaching stock, then we have to use the annual wish list polls to highlight the gaps we would like to be filled and follow this up by actually purchasing the items that we request. After all, it is only when a particular type of product sells well that a manufacturer will look to produce more of the same or similar type of items.

 

Regards

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we might think it's easy to sell 10 wagons for every loco but they are immediately dealing with more bulk, more packaging and so on - perhaps an explanation, in part, of the reason for multipacks of wagons which are becoming more common?

 

Also, if you already have a stock of a particular type of wagon, you are likely to just buy one, another number in the series, and wait for another one next year presumably with a variation.

 

Three pack, three numbers, some lettering variations, it is an easy choice not to wait...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you already have a stock of a particular type of wagon, you are likely to just buy one, another number in the series, and wait for another one next year presumably with a variation...

and THAT is the curse (one of the many?) that plagues UK outline rolling stock: 1wagon, 1 wagon number, once per year! I really do not understand the aversion the usual suspects have against producing rolling stock without running numbers. As it is EXTREMELY unlikely that Barwell or Margate will take the American approach and provide completely unnumbered wagons and coaches, perhaps a compromise would be to number (say) a coach with something like "W1234_" where _ is a blank to be filled by a transfer (included or not - another topic for discussion). For those who don't know/don't mind/don't care "W1234_" would be satisfactory, for those in the know/who DO mind, this approach would allow for a fair amount of flexibility. For wagons with a 4 or 5 digit running number "12_ _" or "123_ _" would give a huge amount of renumbering possibilities. Furthermore, it could even boost their sales. In my case, for example, I don't like renumbering but the area I'm modelling saw a lot of coal traffic with diverse PO wagons. If Hornby or Bachmann would issue a nice 5 or 7-plank coal wagon in the livery of OCEAN collieries w ith the running number "1234", I'd probably buy one, maybe two. But if released with the running number "12_ _" I would bulk buy a dozen or so quite happily.

 

F

Link to post
Share on other sites

So where to next? One significant question to ask Bachmann, Hornby et al. would be "is there a business case for concentrating purely/mostly on carriages and wagons for the next business year?", I suspect, were we lucky enough to get a reply, that the answer would be "no" Even Dapol, probably the most rolling stock oriented of the OO volume producers, seems to be expanding out of its rolling stock niche.

No - certainly not purely or mostly. There is always more panache with locomotives. But there is a question of balance. What's the point of having lovely locomotives with nothing to pull?

I think the answer will always be 'no' for any manufacturer capable of getting together the design and production facility (even in China) for a loco they 'know' will sell profitably. The reason - simple economics.

I think Mike's reasoning is sound regarding wagons. In the wagon department, I would argue that offering a better variety of brake vans is at least a good starting point. Even between Hornby and Bachmann Branch-line, at any arbitrary point in time, you can't consistently purchase a representative RTR brake van for each of the big four. Accepting that I don't have their sales data, I still don't understand how having brake vans appear at least regularly isn't a winning proposition.

 

However, the price equation is different for coaches and Hornby and Bachmann Branch-Line have embraced the price point with two recent multiple units - the 5BEL and Midland Pullman. I think these meet profitability targets.

 

A trend I have seen in the US for many years now is for manufactures to make full consists (I can get away with that word in this context) of famous trains along with the locomotives that pull them. These are sold a number of ways, but most commonly coach by coach - with articulated units in a group and are generally released gradually over months - which makes it easier for everyone, spreading out the manufacturing and the expense burden to customers.

 

A short (incomplete) list from at least three manufacturers includes over the last several years includes:

  • ATSF SuperChief
  • CB&Q / D&RGW / WP California Zephyr
  • PRR Broadway Limited
  • SP Daylight - two versions concurrently
  • NYC 20th Century Limited - three versions by different manufacturers
  • N&W Powhattan Arrow
  • ATSF El Capitan

Plus a bunch of multiple units

  • UP M-10000
  • CB&Q Pioneer Zephyr
  • North Shore Electroliner
  • New Haven Comet
  • CN Turbotrain
  • EMD Aerotrain

The DMUs are usually sold as a base set of ~3 with add-on cars.

 

I personally believe that the argument that the US market is big enough to sustain this while the UK isn't doesn't hold with me. These are very specific to a particular route and a particular railroad - just like the Blue Pullman or the Brighton Belle. Prestige trains do sell.

 

Why wouldn't an 1904 GWR Ocean Mails train appeal to buyers of City of Truro? (Some of us even bought that absurdly priced 1908 Olympics set.) :blush_mini:

What about the 1937 LNER Coronation or the Jubilee? How many garter-blue A4s have been sold, yet never a major RTR version of the train they were painted to pull? It's my impression that only three different coach body designs are needed for the Coronation and only the two articulated units for the West Riding.

 

This is not withstanding the on-going discussion around the more useful non-corridor suburban and branch line stock, which is even more desirable. I imagine that the LNER fans still want teak articulated sets.

 

I think we're on the cusp of seeing more useful passenger stock. Hornby announced the SR(egion) push-pull set this year. That's a very positive step. Of course Kernow has commissioned the LSWR push-pull set - bless them.

 

Now it comes down to people endorsing them in the polling process. I know I will vote for rolling stock come Monday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

But if released with the running number "12_ _" I would bulk buy a dozen or so quite happily.

 

F

 

But then there'll always be those who say they can't apply numbers and this argument will just be like the build/can't build a loco kit discussion.

 

I believe Hornby tried going down the road of supplying locos with alternate numbers many years ago - I don't think it caught on. And before anyone mentions that they've been doing unnumbered/undecorated stuff in the US, please remember that the US market is a bit larger than the UK.

 

Cheers,

Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you already have a stock of a particular type of wagon, you are likely to just buy one, another number in the series, and wait for another one next year presumably with a variation.

and THAT is the curse (one of the many?) that plagues UK outline rolling stock: 1wagon, 1 wagon number, once per year! I really do not understand the aversion the usual suspects have against producing rolling stock without running numbers. As it is EXTREMELY unlikely that Barwell or Margate will take the American approach and provide completely unnumbered wagons and coaches.

The other US trend I see is for manufacturers to announce a model and offer it in multiple running numbers. (Which reminds me that I have a set of SP/UP PFE reefers that I need to pick up.)

 

Hornby did do something similar to this with the SR coaches in Maunsell olive. But they made so many and they came and went in such a flash. On a couple of items they got up to RxxxxxG in the space of I think two years. That's unusual for Hornby and I have the impression that they sold extremely well.

 

This year Hornby is offering one of the old GWR Suburban B set. With the 61xx back in rotation, why not offer both?? I don't get it. (But I'm now way off topic for the Bachmann releases - my apologies.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

... if you look at the results from annual wish list polls, every year the top twenty seems to be full of locomotives.* Until consumers start to ask manufacturers for stock to go with their existing locomotives rather than keep asking for more new classes, With the MREmag / RMweb annual wish list coming up, the "next" has to start with "us" focussing on what additional stock we want our locomotives to haul.

Hear hear! Without a doubt.

* Except for GWR fans and the Churchward toplights. (Not that I'm canvassing! It's all there in the MROL data.) Please vote Churchward: Toplights, Star, Steam railmotor. Collett 54xx/64xx/74xx would be nice too plus roling stock I won't bore you with!

I think this may because the 'average modeler' finds kit wagons and, to a lesser extent, coaches are significantly easier than locos to build.

I think there is truth to this - particularly for wagons, but underscoring Ian's point here:

Even if I kit- or scratch-build a model, my ability to render it full justice when painting and lining is always going to fall well-short of a Chinese factory finish.

.. for the fully lined coach liveries of the first half of the 20th century it is hard for many of us to match home paint jobs with contemporary manufacturing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and THAT is the curse (one of the many?) that plagues UK outline rolling stock: 1wagon, 1 wagon number, once per year! I really do not understand the aversion the usual suspects have against producing rolling stock without running numbers.

 

Well, it's better than one wagon, one number, year on year, as we had not so long ago.

 

But then there'll always be those who say they can't apply numbers and this argument will just be like the build/can't build a loco kit discussion.

 

Too true. Not only that, but it could present difficulties with returns, if a model has had the numbers badly applied then proves to be faulty

 

I think Mike's reasoning is sound regarding wagons. In the wagon department, I would argue that offering a better variety of brake vans is at least a good starting point. Even between Hornby and Bachmann Branch-line, at any arbitrary point in time, you can't consistently purchase a representative RTR brake van for each of the big four. Accepting that I don't have their sales data, I still don't understand how having brake vans appear at least regularly isn't a winning proposition.

seeing more useful passenger stock. Hornby announced the SR(egion) push-pull set this year.

 

To borrow your own word, I think we're on the cusp of brakevan awareness, with the SR pillbox not too far away and this week's announcement of the MR type van. There'll be a reason why the later Stanier van and the Toad havent been looked at, it may just be that the current ex-Airfix vans are still seen as acceptable models (the Stanier is IMO, with the only real drawback by modern standards being its moulded handrails and 'old school' deep stepboard hangers). But a small suite of Toads, utilising modern technologies to produce several similar but different diagrams, is surely something that has to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

However, the price equation is different for coaches and Hornby and Bachmann Branch-Line have embraced the price point with two recent multiple units - the 5BEL and Midland Pullman. I think these meet profitability targets.

 

A trend I have seen in the US for many years now is for manufactures to make full consists (I can get away with that word in this context) of famous trains along with the locomotives that pull them. These are sold a number of ways, but most commonly coach by coach - with articulated units in a group and are generally released gradually over months - which makes it easier for everyone, spreading out the manufacturing and the expense burden to customers......

 

 

Plus a bunch of multiple unitsThe DMUs are usually sold as a base set of ~3 with add-on cars.

 

I personally believe that the argument that the US market is big enough to sustain this while the UK isn't doesn't hold with me. These are very specific to a particular route and a particular railroad - just like the Blue Pullman or the Brighton Belle. Prestige trains do sell.

 

Why wouldn't an 1904 GWR Ocean Mails train appeal to buyers of City of Truro? (Some of us even bought that absurdly priced 1908 Olympics set.) :blush_mini:

What about the 1937 LNER Coronation or the Jubilee? How many garter-blue A4s have been sold, yet never a major RTR version of the train they were painted to pull? It's my impression that only three different coach body designs are needed for the Coronation and only the two articulated units for the West Riding.

 

This is not withstanding the on-going discussion around the more useful non-corridor suburban and branch line stock, which is even more desirable. I imagine that the LNER fans still want teak articulated sets.....

 

Now it comes down to people endorsing them in the polling process. I know I will vote for rolling stock come Monday.

 

Hear hear! Without a doubt.

* Except for GWR fans and the Churchward toplights. (Not that I'm canvassing! It's all there in the MROL data.)

 

I think there is truth to this - particularly for wagons, but someone (I don't remember who) pointed out that for the fully lined coach liveries of the first half of the 20th century it is hard for many of us to match home paint jobs with contemporary manufacturing.

 

 

The problem is that with a very few exceptions British prestige expresses were made up of normal general service coaches - unlike the US where named trains got special sets of "one -off" stock, often styled by leading designers. The fact is that the Elizabethan (for example) in the 50s was made up of the same general service Mk1s that BR was using on everything else . The main exception - the LNER streamliners - were very short lived : the longest lasting , the Silver Jubilee lasted from 30th September 1935 to 31st August 1939 - not quite 4 years. After that the stock never ran as a complete set in public service again . The West Riding Limited lasted less than 2 years - and again the stock never ran as a complete set again in passenger service after August 1939

 

The Brighton Belle and the Blue Pullman are almost the only other cases where you have special stock for a special service . Hornby did take the approach you mention with the Pendolino, and Bachmann have done with Voyagers, though it might be better if they sold a complete 4 car Voyager , plus a strengthener to 5 . And most British modellers have limited space for such things anyway - few of us have the luxury of enough space for scale length HSTs

Link to post
Share on other sites

....and THAT is the curse (one of the many?) that plagues UK outline rolling stock: 1wagon, 1 wagon number, once per year! I really do not understand the aversion the usual suspects have against producing rolling stock without running numbers. As it is EXTREMELY unlikely that Barwell or Margate will take the American approach and provide completely unnumbered wagons and coaches,

The logic behind all this baffles me. If you are wanting manufacturers to produce wagons without numbers, this means you are prepared to put numbers on them. So why aren't you renumbering all your wagons anyway?
Link to post
Share on other sites

To borrow your own word, I think we're on the cusp of brakevan awareness, ... But a small suite of Toads, utilising modern technologies to produce several similar but different diagrams, is surely something that has to come.

I hope so. It would be a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that with a very few exceptions British prestige expresses were made up of normal general service coaches. The fact is that the Elizabethan (for example) in the 50s was made up of the same general service Mk1s that BR was using on everything else.

I wasn't really thinking in terms of BR era. Though coaches by Bulleid, Hawksworth and Thompson in BR liveries seem to attract a lot of discussion outside of the Mk1s.

 

The main exception - the LNER streamliners - were very short lived: the longest lasting , the Silver Jubilee lasted from 30th September 1935 to 31st August 1939 - not quite 4 years. After that the stock never ran as a complete set in public service again . The West Riding Limited lasted less than 2 years - and again the stock never ran as a complete set again in passenger service after August 1939.

My comments were indeed grouping era centric and related to locomotives being offered in the catalogues. Regarding the LNER, I get the impression that a disproprtionate number of silver and blue A4 models get sold compared to the numbers produced and their service life in this livery. Why shouldn't this happen for coaches too?

 

Regarding other companies, I'm not sure that you can purchase a Maunsell coach in olive from a current catalogue* (though there are lots of Bulleid livery choices).

 

For the GWR, both Hornby and Bachmann are offering Collett coaches with the shirtbutton, which is nice if you're modelling the late 1930s. Otherwise you're stuck.

 

Thankfully Bachmann has the LMS porthole stock coming because Hornby offers very little right now in the way of LMS coaches.

 

* Until a couple of years ago, this had been the case for a very long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...