Models Hornby Could Make, but probably won't.

[The Johnster]

Yes, always a problem with the Churchward moguls. They didn't make that many of them, only about 500 or so. That poor old No4 boiler was a limited production run to about 1,200 examples, covering the moguls, 42/52/72xx tanks, 26xx Aberdare, plus a lot other classes I've temporarily forgotten...

 

Happy modelling!

 

Ian.

 

City of Truro.

[The Johnster]

Models Hornby should make but definitely won't, probably the biggest gap in RTR supply for any of the Big 4 companies; Collett non gangwayed compartment stock THAT ISN'T A B SET!!!  No other manufacturer is going to touch these with a barge pole either.  This, paradoxically, is a result of the GW's love of standardisation; they standardised on the compartment sizes and built the coaches to at least 3 different lengths of chassis.  It would require separate chassis tooling for each type produced, and the shelf price would stifle it at birth.

 

But this leaves a huge gap in provision for anyone modelling the London, Birmingham, Bristol, and South Wales areas, and these were where the coaches were concentrated, not where they were uniquely used.  There is, by railway modelling standards, a big market unsatisfied out there; RTR production methods are just not geared up for this sort of thing.  They can also be converted to 1955 auto trailers, needing little more than a new end in the brake third.

 

Another one (sorry to harp on about GW coaches) is the A26/29 auto trailer, an impressive beast of a 70 panelled coach that carried a variety of bogies and liveries in it's long life; some had the toplights plated over which made them look even more impressive.  These were the most numerous type of GW trailer, and could be produced as a railmotor, which was their original form.  But they are too long for propelling around train set curves, especially with those long buffer shanks.  This is a shame from H's point of view, as the variety of styles, bogies, and liveries could produce a lot of interest from one basic moulding.

[phil-b259]

The one model I’m desperate for is an LNER E4 - they already have the tender and boiler for it, and I suspect the J15 chassis is adaptable. And there’s one in the National collection!

 

 

Having 'the boiler for it' is no help - far too many modellers forget that model locos are not built by bolting separate components together!

 

That a certain type of boiler may have been used on multiple types of loco - or that different loco types might happen to share a certain wheelbase are irreverent and of no help to model manufacturers.

 

Each loco body is a bespoke item (not withstanding the various slides designed into the tooling to accommodate variations), if you want a LNER E4 then it requires at the minimum the designing of completely new tooling of the body (which in turn may require a different mounting arrangement for the motor than the J15 provides)

 

Thus pretty much the ONLY thing that can be 'reused' when it comes to developing new models from existing models are locomotive tenders

Edited May 19, 2018 by phil-b259

[Big James]

The biggest gap in the LSWR models is the H15 long lived. But not a lot of variations. Plus the al ready the M15 and maunsell s15.

 

Big James

[robmcg]

We will soon see the Princess Coronations re-tooled in original condition, but will there be a factory-weathered wartime black version?  like the 2005 R1060 6243 'City of Lancaster'?

 

picture edited but not far off the actual model.

 

 

 

 

 

[mckinneyc]

The E4 is an interesting idea. A distinctive wheel arrangement, a long lived design and Victorian designs seem to be vogue, plus there is a survivor to study.

 

I'd like Hornby to tackle the K4. The missing link in Gresley's masterpieces and Hornby seem to nail LNER designs. Plus they're Scottish.

[Dick Turpin]

Models that Hornby could make but probably won't? What an odd title for a thread!

 

What Hornby should make IMO is a GNR J6 - the most widely distributed workaday 0-6-0 on the LNER, not to mention useful. Apart from GNR coaches mentioned above, I can't think of a better member of the supporting cast for their superb line up of thoroughbred racing pacifics.

 

A reason why they would not want to produce one - can't think of one! 

[Steamport Southport]

Models that Hornby could make but probably won't? What an odd title for a thread!

 

What Hornby should make IMO is a GNR J6 - the most widely distributed workaday 0-6-0 on the LNER, not to mention useful. Apart from GNR coaches mentioned above, I can't think of a better member of the supporting cast for their superb line up of thoroughbred racing pacifics.

 

A reason why they would not want to produce one - can't think of one! 

 

I think that's because the thread was originally about what they could do just by altering the existing tools slightly or using things like different tenders and wheels to make something else.

 

Things such as a H15 from a King Arthur. The Great Bear from a Star.

 

It quickly descended into a wishlist.

 

 

 

Jason

[JimC]

Yes, always a problem with the Churchward moguls. They didn't make that many of them, only about 500 or so. That poor old No4 boiler was a limited production run to about 1,200 examples, covering the moguls, 42/52/72xx tanks, 26xx Aberdare, plus a lot other classes I've temporarily forgotten...

Mmm, and even in their heyday, when they comprised 7% of the GWR fleet, they were only running 14% of the annual locomotive mileage... Edited May 20, 2018 by JimC

[Gilwell Park]

Mmm, and even in their heyday, when the comprised 7% of the GWR fleet, they were only running 14% of the annual locomotive mileage...

I think the "problem" with the Churchward moguls is that they were so useful that they were used for anything & everything and were frequently overloaded. leading people to think that they were not big enough!

[The Johnster]

Time, I think, to nail this myth that 43xx moguls were frequently overloaded.  They probably were during the war, as al engines were, 'exingencies of the service; there's a war on you know', but in normal service a driver would not take an overloaded train unless Control had been informed and the timings extended so that the load was within the loco's capacity; load and timings tables existed for this purpose in the Sectional Appendixes for whatever routes the train was to run over.  This is not to say that they weren't worked to death, neglected, and had to struggle a bit, but a fireman's opinion of what is an excess load is not always shared by his driver or by the tables.

[Chuffed 1]

Thank you for the translation.

Another cause of the coal not coming forward was the smoothness of the Nellies. The cranks were arranged so that there were eight beats per rotation of the wheels. Apparently, in the search to solve the known shortcomings, one had its cranks rearranged in the conventional manner; to produce four beats. It didn’t seem to make much difference.

 

It’s rather sad, I think. Maunsell tends to be rather under-rated, possibly because his most attention-grabbing design turned out to be flawed.

Lord Nelsons flawed? Only in regard to their non-standard grate, perhaps and that was removed when all Nelsons were concentrated at Eastleigh and the firemen fully trained in firing the kinked grate. Compared to an unrebuilt Bulleid pacific they were reliability personified - scheduled to 90,000 miles between General Overhauls, Robert Blake managed a recorded mileage of 207,853 miles between generals in 1955. Couldn't see a Gresley Pacific matching that!

 

As to the theme of the thread, I think any extinct steam class wouldn't be commissioned - you wouldn't get the 'preservation' sales on modern layouts that a SECR H or C class in original livery would garner and I doubt there are enough pre-grouping modellers for anything that didn't make it to the 1950's.

The demographic continues to move on and today's new modeller would be more likely to be portraying the post-steam (and maybe post-privatisation) than anything older.

 

Personally I'd love a Billington K class mogul, but why would any modern era modeller buy one?

[Wickham Green]

Lord Nelsons flawed? Only in regard to their non-standard grate, perhaps ...........

............. not to mention the not exactly wonderful cylinders - presumably less than direct steam passages - that Bulleid replaced ( on all but one loco ) long before 1955 ! 

[Simon Bendall]

The May 11th entry on the Gloucestershire-Warwickshire Railway rolling stock blog might start the froth generator. Not necessarily Hornby of course

 

http://cwatgwsr.blogspot.co.uk

 

'They were from a railway modelling company come to measure up some wagon for their next projects. The Syphon G was easy. Its just outside the workshop and is  easy to access.

The other vehicle, a wagon, is at Cheltenham somewhere towards Hunting butts Tunnel. So having photo'd and measured the Syphon we set off.Needless to say after a few shouts of glee 'we have found it' followed soon by a 'no that's a 20 ton version' Apparently the 16 ton version we were looking for  is supposed to be very different.'

[ndg910]

The GWSR Siphon G is an inside frame version so that’s possible. But the ex Lima model is passable with new bogies but the worry there is the market is quite saturated with 2nd hand versions. Hornby also have the ex Mainline/Dapol tooling for the outside frame version.

 

As for a 16t wagon or van I’m struggling to think of something that also came as a 20t version. A ballast hopper maybe? Anyway no point worrying now and am more hoping Hornby aren’t wasting their time. There are lots of other prototypes ripe for selection without retooling Lima models.

 

If at the GWSR, a better choice might be the Monster/Giant there. Without checking I can’t say which it is.

[County of Yorkshire]

If at the GWSR, a better choice might be the Monster/Giant there. Without checking I can’t say which it is.

 

And also this beauty. 

 

CoY

[gwrrob]

And also this beauty. 

 

CoY

 

Most definitely.

[Steamport Southport]

Lord Nelsons flawed? Only in regard to their non-standard grate, perhaps and that was removed when all Nelsons were concentrated at Eastleigh and the firemen fully trained in firing the kinked grate. Compared to an unrebuilt Bulleid pacific they were reliability personified - scheduled to 90,000 miles between General Overhauls, Robert Blake managed a recorded mileage of 207,853 miles between generals in 1955. Couldn't see a Gresley Pacific matching that!

 

As to the theme of the thread, I think any extinct steam class wouldn't be commissioned - you wouldn't get the 'preservation' sales on modern layouts that a SECR H or C class in original livery would garner and I doubt there are enough pre-grouping modellers for anything that didn't make it to the 1950's.

The demographic continues to move on and today's new modeller would be more likely to be portraying the post-steam (and maybe post-privatisation) than anything older.

 

Personally I'd love a Billington K class mogul, but why would any modern era modeller buy one?

 

I think you are over estimating the interest in preserved railways when it comes to model railways. It's virtually non existent.

 

 

Just from Hornby.

 

B17, J83, Patriot, Grange, P2, O1, D16, 700, Crosti 9F, County (both types), Caledonian Pug, J50, LMS Fowler 4P 2-6-4T, L1, have all gone to the big shunting yard in the sky.

 

Okay one or two may be being built as new builds, but most of those projects started after the models appeared.

 

 

 

Jason

[ndg910]

This has the danger of becoming a frothfest in May. Uh oh!. But I wouldn’t say no either.

[JimC]

far too many modellers forget that model locos are not built by bolting separate components together!

Is that as true as it used to be? Don't all models these days start life in CAD, in which case you surely can take the electronic version of various standard components and then put them together with the various parts that are unique for each locomotive? I did an awful lot of that with the 2D drawings for my book, and the time taken to draw a locomotive based mainly on components I already had was considerably less than for one where I had to redraw everything from scratch.

[adb968008]

I think you are over estimating the interest in preserved railways when it comes to model railways. It's virtually non existent.

 

 

Just from Hornby.

 

B17, J83, Patriot, Grange, P2, O1, D16, 700, Crosti 9F, County (both types), Caledonian Pug, J50, LMS Fowler 4P 2-6-4T, L1, have all gone to the big shunting yard in the sky.

 

Okay one or two may be being built as new builds, but most of those projects started after the models appeared.

 

 

 

Jason

Having seen so many P’s and Barclays, most variants being preserved liveries on the Barclays particularly, I beg to differ.

There may not be many Preserved Model Railway layouts, but I suspect there’s a very healthy demand for models of the preserved locos that run on them.

Edited May 21, 2018 by adb968008

[Tarnish1]

Yes Avocet (Class 89) is an interesting choice (in BR livery) as is the P1 2-8-2 "heavyweight"!

 

I think Hornby will make a "Bugatti P2" at some stage but hope that the model is enhanced from the basic "Railroad" format.  As for the W1 (or even its previous iteration as the "Hush hush") - well we are sadly in the realms of wishful thinking!

[Hilux5972]

As for the W1 (or even its previous iteration as the "Hush hush") - well we are sadly in the realms of wishful thinking!

Says who? Stirling Single, Dynamometer Car, APT-E? All one off designs released or close to release so never say never.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Don't all models these days start life in CAD, in which case you surely can take the electronic version of various standard components and then put them together with the various parts that are unique for each locomotive? ...

 This clearly does happen in respect of mechanism layouts, and is very clearly on view in centre motor twin bogie drives. A manufacturer's standardised drive line components are arranged in a  layout suitably dimensioned for the class they are to power. I would hope from an economy perspective that there is a 'boiler plate' format in CAD, into which the designer enters a set of key dimensions, and the CAD system then produces a first draft of the mechanism layout.

 

Bodywork, it will depend on whether the tooling has been carefully thought through with this in view. It is very clear on Bachmann's Peppercorn pacifics that the cab design having been drawn and tooled as a separate piece from the boiler and footplate, has been reused from the A1 on the A2. (Giveaway evidence: there are two redundant holes to take conduits present on the A1, that are not on the A2 model.)

[Chuffed 1]

I think you are over estimating the interest in preserved railways when it comes to model railways. It's virtually non existent.

 

 

Just from Hornby.

 

B17, J83, Patriot, Grange, P2, O1, D16, 700, Crosti 9F, County (both types), Caledonian Pug, J50, LMS Fowler 4P 2-6-4T, L1, have all gone to the big shunting yard in the sky.

 

Okay one or two may be being built as new builds, but most of those projects started after the models appeared.

 

 

 

Jason

Interesting point, but many you quote are old types, either re-engineered or laid down some years back. The Hawkesworth County, P2, Patriot, & Grange are new builds, soon to be running on the main line.. Surely the only recent (last five years) types are the 700 & Crosti?  And the former has clearly not sold well judging by the recent heavy discounting amongst retailers. Which seems to suggest Hornby are choosing types that can run as 'preserved' on a modern layout as the  average demographic shifts towards fifty years ago and the demise of steam on the network.

I would suggest this forty to fifty year retrospective has been part of railway modelling since the late sixties - certainly when I started (1969)  it seemed everybody was doing their version of a pre-war Charmouth.  More recently, there appears a higher number of 'rail blue' layouts at exhibitions. Has anyone made an analysis of actual layout/era preferences, as opposed to wealthy glass-case stockers?