History in miniature

[MarkSG]

This is a bit of a wishlisty post, for which I apologise, but recent arrivals on my doormat of the Rapido APT-E and the RMweb/DJM "yellow peril", as well as the Hattons/Heljan Garratt a couple of years ago, have got me thinking.

 

It seems to me that there is a market out there for models which are primarily collectors' items rather than being intended as part of the stock for a more typical model railway, yet bought by people who would describe themselves more as modellers than collectors. As well as the ones I've bought, the forthcoming Rapido Stirling Single is another example.

 

To be sure, all of these do have a place in the appropriate setting. But I'd be willing to hazard a guess that there aren't many of us who, before they were announced, were thinking, "What I really need for my layout, for authenticity, is an APT-E/Garratt/NCB industrial/etc".

 

It also occurred to me that we are currently in a period of time that covers the bicentenary of many important milestones in the early developments of the railways. We've already passed the 200th anniversary of both Richard Trevithick's first locomotive (1802) and George Stephenson's (1814). There's a huge anniversary coming up in the next decade, of the construction and opening of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. And then, of course, a bit later on, we'll be celebrating 200 years since the Rainhill trials.

 

It seems to me, therefore, that, given the importance of the dates, as well as our proven willingness to spend money on things "just because" rather than with any particular theme in mind, now would be a good time for a manufacturer to announce RTR models of some of the most famous early locomotives and trains. Rocket, of course, would be top of the wishlist for most people, along with other Rainhill competitors. But I reckon there would be a market for some of the early S&D locos as well.

 

What makes this plausible now, in a way that it hasn't been in the past, is the improvement in design and construction techniques for RTR models, particularly very small motors. A fully working model of Rocket is feasible now in a way that previously would have been very difficult.

 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this were not already under consideration, particularly as part of the NRM/Locomotion Models "National Collection in Miniature" where it would be an obvious part of the range. So, if it is, please take this as a vote of confidence in the project. And, if not, consider it a suggestion!

[PatB]

Whilst I'd love to see some really early locos appear r-t-r, I wonder about the practical difficulties of manufacturing all that spidery valvegear above the boiler of, say, Locomotion.

 

Something that might be interesting, though, would be some of the later and, in reality, rather more practical locos like the Rocket descended Northumbrian type, a Planet and maybe a Patentee (the obvious choice being Lion). Given those and a small collection of appropriate goods and passenger stock, a reasonable representation of an early main line starts to look within reach of the non-scratchbuilder.

[BG John]

There are vast numbers of interesting and collectable items from the first 100 years of railway history, that RTR manufacturers almost totally ignore, while flooding the market with models only suitable for the last 30 years of steam. Bring it on, as long as they are convertible to EM and P4 for those of us who actually model the 19th and early 20h century already!

[Edwardian]

I would support this, as it could be a great model, but, I am concerned that a hotch-potch of otherwise random models, often in inaccurate preserved condition, is somewhat lacking as an approach.

 

I bought the umber E4.  I have yet to build coaches for it.  247 Developments used to supply Fox bogies, which I would have used. It is sometimes difficult, expensive and is certainly a long-term process to produce something that gives meaning to a random release, unsupported by its manufacturer.

 

I would like the Stirling Single.  I would have to add a rake of 1880s ECML 6-wheelers to the list of things to research, obtain plans, source parts for, afford and build.

 

Better might be Locomotion producing a couple of Race to the North train packs, with Hardwicke and No1 each with a string of contemporary coaches! (I know these were different races, but that doesn't matter as they're different lines!).

 

Would you envisage stock to run with the Rocket, or anything else of that period?  Coaches, wagons, Lion? If not, I think such releases lose much of their point.  Such models are supplied with motors and couplings, yet these features are largely redundant if there is never anything to run with them.  I look forward to the magazine review in which we learn how many Mark Is the new Rocket model will pull.  It's absurd.

 

I have no wish to model a static display museum layout ('Death Steam' folks model static lines of rusty locos, so I should not discount the possibility that someone would want to).  I don't want to model a fantasy preserved layout set at some mythical point in time at which all my "as preserved" limited editions have current boiler certificates.

 

I am concerned that we already have a growing trend in misfit cabinet-fodder releases.  I think we need something a bit more joined up.

[MarkSG]

It would, I think, need to be a train pack rather than just a standalone loco. Otherwise it does become a bit meaningless. That's one of the things that's put me off ordering the Stirling Single.

[Poggy1165]

Many people are chiefly interested in locos. They will run anything with Mark 1 coaches, just like the average preserved railway. And there are an awful lot of collectors. It's not just coaches either. Where are your genuine, pre 1923 RTR wagons? (I won't bother mentioning track and signalling, as we'd be here all week.)

 

 

For early railways I think 7mm scale makes more sense. Trains can be very short, and there are at least two suppliers of early stock. Albeit in kit form, but pretty simple kits, no soldering involved. If I wanted to model the mid 19th Century, that's where I'd go.

[Edwardian]

Many people are chiefly interested in locos. They will run anything with Mark 1 coaches, just like the average preserved railway. And there are an awful lot of collectors. It's not just coaches either. Where are your genuine, pre 1923 RTR wagons? (I won't bother mentioning track and signalling, as we'd be here all week.)

 

 

For early railways I think 7mm scale makes more sense. Trains can be very short, and there are at least two suppliers of early stock. Albeit in kit form, but pretty simple kits, no soldering involved. If I wanted to model the mid 19th Century, that's where I'd go.

 

Fair assessment, but I'll kick against the illogical, patchy, transition era-obsessed, car-crash that are RTR "ranges" until my dying breath!  

[BG John]

Short trains are ideal for small modern houses, and the trend for small and micro layouts, but we still get main line tender locos and rolling stock. A train set with a 4-6-0 and two coaches looks weird, when the real thing probably had several times that many, but a tiny early loco and half a dozen small coaches would probably fit in the same space, and look far more convincing.

[Andy Hayter]

I like the idea and agree that it really needs to be a whole train concept - even for the collector.

 

It is however not new. 

 

Triang and then Hornby Triang have done rocket and 2/3 coaches in 4mm (nominally).

 

In 3.5mm we have Maerklin/Trix with Der Adler,

and Bachmann with Lafayette, John Bull and a De Witt Clinton.  In all cases coaches were also available. 

[Ozexpatriate]

It seems to me that there is a market out there for models which are primarily collectors' items rather than being intended as part of the stock for a more typical model railway, yet bought by people who would describe themselves more as modellers than collectors. As well as the ones I've bought, the forthcoming Rapido Stirling Single is another example.

I did sign up for the Sirling Single. I would like to see coaches that go with it, but given the development investment required, that investment would be more prudently spent on items that people will likely purchase more than one of - like 20^th century coaches (Churchward Toplights anyone?) that were not previously produced in plastic RTR, or something that people might only buy one of but will be run more often with existing layouts - like LNER Jubilee or Coronation / West-Riding sets.

 

I would like the Stirling Single.  I would have to add a rake of 1880s ECML 6-wheelers to the list of things to research, obtain plans, source parts for, afford and build.

 

Better might be Locomotion producing a couple of Race to the North train packs, with Hardwicke and No1 each with a string of contemporary coaches! (I know these were different races, but that doesn't matter as they're different lines!).

I had long thought some kind of 'Race to the North" packs would be exciting to customers. They will appeal to many and having coaches creates a little more motivation to run them occasionally.

 

For me personally that appeal is starting to dim - mostly in light of the difficulties that manufacturers seem to be having in bringing product to the marketplace. Bachmann Branch-Line is the slow and steady tortoise in this regard compared with the overstretched Hornby hare, bringing lots of new product to market that is 'flash-bang-gone' as soon as it arrives. Other entries, like the specialty commissioned items have what feels like a glacial development pace which is all well and good when the product at last appears, but there remains a huge back-log of, so-far, unproduced items.

 

Until that back-log is consumed, I don't think there will be as much excitement over what I'll call novelty, one-off items as there would have been a couple of years ago.

[Jol Wilkinson]

It is the same old story. Those that really want to create models of early railways have to follow the scratch/kitbuilding route. If you don't want to do that, then you have to accept what the RTR manufacturers see as commercial and hence manufacture. Those few pre-group models  that come to market are bought in reasonable numbers by the collector/modeller, but not always supported with rolling stock to make an early layout possible for the RTR modeller. 

 

Early locos - especially the  really early stuff, e.g. 1840s  to 1880s - are smaller than later prototypes and hence may well be more difficult/expensive to manufacture. Kits have been available for some time, e.g. the K's Milestone range (still available on ebay from time to time), LRM, Parly Trains and others. Detail drawings for early stuff isn't aways available and photos are even rarer.  It is therefore unlikely that  the RTR manufacturers will want to spend much effort on such locos.

 

The best the RTR modeller/collector can hope for is that those locos in preservation will attract the manufacturers attention, e.g. the LNWR Coal Tank (although that is being modelled in its later version and not even in LNWR livery). As 3D scanning seems to be the preferred route for prototype data acquisition, that rather narrows the field.

[Edwardian]

It is the same old story. Those that really want to create models of early railways have to follow the scratch/kitbuilding route. If you don't want to do that, then you have to accept what the RTR manufacturers see as commercial and hence manufacture. Those few pre-group models  that come to market are bought in reasonable numbers by the collector/modeller, but not always supported with rolling stock to make an early layout possible for the RTR modeller. 

 

Early locos - especially the  really early stuff, e.g. 1840s  to 1880s - are smaller than later prototypes and hence may well be more difficult/expensive to manufacture. Kits have been available for some time, e.g. the K's Milestone range (still available on ebay from time to time), LRM, Parly Trains and others. Detail drawings for early stuff isn't aways available and photos are even rarer.  It is therefore unlikely that  the RTR manufacturers will want to spend much effort on such locos.

 

The best the RTR modeller/collector can hope for is that those locos in preservation will attract the manufacturers attention, e.g. the LNWR Coal Tank (although that is being modelled in its later version and not even in LNWR livery). As 3D scanning seems to be the preferred route for prototype data acquisition, that rather narrows the field.

 

All true, but demonstrating a greater appetite for earlier periods and pressing manufacturers to do more is also important; earlier periods need to be more accessible in order to become more popular, it's rather chicken and egg.

[t-b-g]

Most of my modelling is set in pre-grouping times. Not going back as far as Lion, Rocket etc. but to the early 1900s.

 

I used to model BR period, then LNER period but I found that it was getting much more difficult to create a model that was not like lots of others. So I went further back.

 

Now I can build my GCR, LNWR, GNR models, whatever I like, in the pretty safe knowledge that the RTR manufacturers are not going to dampen my bonfire by bringing out model of things that I have built.

 

It is a very selfish point of view. I have no right to expect that other people shouldn't have models of the same things that I have. Maybe a big influx of older RTR prototypes might cause a big boost in modelling older railways but it is not, from a personal viewpoint, what I want to see.

 

I enjoy making things. I can be reasonably good at it sometimes. I like the idea of spending my time building a kit or scratchbuilding something that results in an unusual model that is not something that you see everywhere.

 

What I wouldn't enjoy is to spend a lot of time (as I have recently done) building a loco like a NLR 4-4-0T only to see Hornby/Bachmnn etc. bring one out and all of a sudden everybody and anybody can have one which is probably better than mine with no more effort than opening a wallet.

 

So I hope that the RTR guys keep out of producing older things. There, I said it was selfish!

[Talltim]

Most of my modelling is set in pre-grouping times. Not going back as far as Lion, Rocket etc. but to the early 1900s.

 

I used to model BR period, then LNER period but I found that it was getting much more difficult to create a model that was not like lots of others. So I went further back.

 

Now I can build my GCR, LNWR, GNR models, whatever I like, in the pretty safe knowledge that the RTR manufacturers are not going to dampen my bonfire by bringing out model of things that I have built.

 

It is a very selfish point of view. I have no right to expect that other people shouldn't have models of the same things that I have. Maybe a big influx of older RTR prototypes might cause a big boost in modelling older railways but it is not, from a personal viewpoint, what I want to see.

 

I enjoy making things. I can be reasonably good at it sometimes. I like the idea of spending my time building a kit or scratchbuilding something that results in an unusual model that is not something that you see everywhere.

 

What I wouldn't enjoy is to spend a lot of time (as I have recently done) building a loco like a NLR 4-4-0T only to see Hornby/Bachmnn etc. bring one out and all of a sudden everybody and anybody can have one which is probably better than mine with no more effort than opening a wallet.

 

So I hope that the RTR guys keep out of producing older things. There, I said it was selfish!

I'm glad its not just me.

As a teen in the 80s I was especially interested in current BR freight. 30 years later its pretty much a case of opening boxes, which puts me off. (yes there's plenty of slightly older NF and VB stock that was still running that isn't available)

I've now taken the pragmatic approach of having two interests, easy (late 1980s US) and hard (early 1910s US)

[Jol Wilkinson]

All true, but demonstrating a greater appetite for earlier periods and pressing manufacturers to do more is also important; earlier periods need to be more accessible in order to become more popular, it's rather chicken and egg.

Chicken and egg is true, but I think the hen is very selective as to what she lays

 

I believe the difficulties I outlined are likely to restrict the amount of interest the RTR manufacturers show. Their failure to produce much in the way of matching period rolling stock for the locos already available is probably an indication of this.

 

Likewise I don't think that the pre-group locos produced so far have done much to increase interest in early railways to the point that people actual want to model them, rather than just buy a loco because it is different/nice/unusual. Is it likely that RTR LNWR livery carriages will become available. There were also quite wide variations in the type of stock that ran on an Victorian/Edwardian railway as rail travel grew and carriages in particular became larger and more refined. So what coaches would you produce to run behind a Coal Tank? Four wheel, six wheel, radial underframe and 42 or 50' suburban bogie stock (many variations) would be suitable.

 

It may seem cynical but I believe that modelling the pre-group and earlier will remain firmly in the DIY sphere, with the RTR manufacturers just dabbling around the edges with "easy" to research prototypes that are attractive to the casual buyer/collector such as the NRM commissions.

[Edwardian]

Chicken and egg is true, but I think the hen is very selective as to what she lays

 

I believe the difficulties I outlined are likely to restrict the amount of interest the RTR manufacturers show. Their failure to produce much in the way of matching period rolling stock for the locos already available is probably an indication of this.

 

Likewise I don't think that the pre-group locos produced so far have done much to increase interest in early railways to the point that people actual want to model them, rather than just buy a loco because it is different/nice/unusual. Is it likely that RTR LNWR livery carriages will become available. There were also quite wide variations in the type of stock that ran on an Victorian/Edwardian railway as rail travel grew and carriages in particular became larger and more refined. So what coaches would you produce to run behind a Coal Tank? Four wheel, six wheel, radial underframe and 42 or 50' suburban bogie stock (many variations) would be suitable.

 

It may seem cynical but I believe that modelling the pre-group and earlier will remain firmly in the DIY sphere, with the RTR manufacturers just dabbling around the edges with "easy" to research prototypes that are attractive to the casual buyer/collector such as the NRM commissions.

 

All again true.

 

To go out on my limb again, I suggest that pre-Grouping locos do not lead to significant interest in the period because they are a series of random orphans, lacking both stable-mates and anything to pull.  I further suggest that kit building will always be essential for earlier periods, as there will always be plenty of gaps to fill, but, potentially, in a larger market.  RTR releases, though, allow more entrants to earlier periods and give established modellers a leg-up.  If I can buy one coach or locomotive for every 2 I'd need to build for a given project, that would be a considerable boon and could tip the scale between embarking upon that project and not doing so.  

 

What to chose?  Well, there is a logic to preferring the Edwardian to Grouping years as a sensible starting point, for a number of reasons.  It capitalises on what little is already available.  The locomotives and rolling stock introduced from, say,1905 to 1923 tend to be recognisably 'classic' steam age and would be useful for Grouping and Nationalisation modellers, too.  The trick is to ensure the earlier appearances of the equipment is catered for.

 

Nothing like comprehensive coverage would be possible, but it could be a lot better than the illogical scatter gun of odd releases we now see.  Yes, you will exclude more than you release, but take half a dozen popular companies and make a few practical choices, e.g. a 4-coupled passenger class, a passenger tank, a 6-coupled goods.  A couple of wagons, a goods break and pick one or 2 of the more versatile types of coaches. That's enough to start running a modest layout, and you can spend the next 20 years building more stuff for it!

 

I see a number of layout topics and magazine articles along the lines of "well I wanted to model the station in the pre-Grouping era, but ...", or where a wide timespan is adopted, so that the available late Grouping and BR stuff that is available means the layout builder has something to run.  I suspect that a number of layouts would be either built to an earlier period or back-dated if that was felt to be a practical proposition by more modellers.

 

Even in the late Thirties, or, I suspect, post-war, not all coaches in service were Grouping standard designs. If you produced a string of Barnums to run with your Improved Director, or ECJS to run with your GN Atlantic, you are not limited to selling them to GC and GN pre-Grouping modellers, but neither are you, as presently is the case, limited to selling to Groupers and Nationalisers.

 

Likewise, the pre-WW1 GW toplights and the 57' LNWR corridor stock of the same period had relatively long lives and would be suitable for a wider market.  

 

Now that we have RTR examples of Gresley/Thompson, Collett/Hawksworth, Maunsel/Bullied and Stanier, the logical next step is to look at the generation of coaches produced by pre-Grouping companies immediately pre-WW1, and immediately post-WW1.  This is precisely what Bachmann is doing with its SECR Birdcage stock (1913?), and hurray for that.  Hornby and Kernow are doing something similar, but have unfortunately neglected to cater for LSWR modellers, producing only ex-LSW tooling for prototypes running as from 1933 and 1935/6 respectively, even though the original vehicles date from 1914 and the 1890s respectively.   I think this is short-sighted of them.

 

Much as I love earlier decades, I suspect that it is by gradually edging backwards, initially into the pre-WW1 years, that the market will be opened up. 

[Poggy1165]

It's complicated. We are seeing some 4mm pre-group coaches being produced, or did I imagine the recent SECR/LSWR productions/proposals?

 

If you take the GC - my obsession - a whole lot of Robinson coaches survived well into the 1950s, and could be run behind (for example) an L1 in BR livery. A manufacturer could produce them in GC, LNER and BR liveries, and they would go very well with the Gresley and Thompson stock already wheeled out. They would, in fact, be idea for a model set in East Manchester and could run alongside class 76 and class 77 electrics! 

 

But is there the demand? I have no idea, but my impression is that a lot of modellers underestimate how many pre-BR coaches were knocking around in the 1950s and early 60s, especially in the sort of backwaters we tend to model.

 

There is an element of chicken-and-egg in it though, and I believe it will always be easiest to model what everyone else is modelling. Anyone who wants to do anything else is doomed to a certain amount of kit-building.

[Jol Wilkinson]

 Anyone who wants to do anything else is doomed to a certain amount of kit-building.

Doomed?

 

I see it the other way round. If you rely on what the manufacturers produce you are doomed to have the same old stuff as anyone else.

[Edwardian]

It's complicated. We are seeing some 4mm pre-group coaches being produced, or did I imagine the recent SECR/LSWR productions/proposals?

 

If you take the GC - my obsession - a whole lot of Robinson coaches survived well into the 1950s, and could be run behind (for example) an L1 in BR livery. A manufacturer could produce them in GC, LNER and BR liveries, and they would go very well with the Gresley and Thompson stock already wheeled out. They would, in fact, be idea for a model set in East Manchester and could run alongside class 76 and class 77 electrics! 

 

But is there the demand? I have no idea, but my impression is that a lot of modellers underestimate how many pre-BR coaches were knocking around in the 1950s and early 60s, especially in the sort of backwaters we tend to model.

 

There is an element of chicken-and-egg in it though, and I believe it will always be easiest to model what everyone else is modelling. Anyone who wants to do anything else is doomed to a certain amount of kit-building.

 

Agree.  I suspect you are correct to suggest that modellers over-estimate the numbers of BR coaches, and probably Grouping designs too.  I don't study the Fifties, but from what I have seen (usually when researching a location, as this is the most common decade for photographs of most places) my impression is that a lot of pre-Grouping coaches were still kicking around and that RTR-populated layouts do not have a representative selection of coaching stock.  I don't know the specifics, though. 

 

We do know that RTR manufacturers will go to earlier prototypes to fuel Fifties/Sixties coverage.  Disappointingly, they will not currently cater for an earlier period of a loco or vehicle's history if that requires different tooling options from the BR version.  This I feel is a great shame and I think should be argued against.  Take the Southern constituents:

 

• With items such as the LSW M7, the SECR C Class, the SECR Birdcages, and the LBSC E4, we are fortunate that only livery changes were necessary in order to give a pre-Grouping version;
• With the LSW T9, Class 700 (Hornby), Adams Radial (Hornby & Oxford), Gate Sock (Kernow), Maunsell rebuilds (Hornby), LBSC Atlantic (Bachmann), we are unfortunate that the BR appearance was created in the Grouping Era and absolutely Zero, Zip, Nothing, has been done to cater for the possibility of pre-Grouping versions.  

A similar point can no doubt be made in relation to other areas, e.g. the definitely ex nature of the ex-GER loco models that have recently been released or announced.

 

I voted for a lot of the models that have since been released in the BRM wish-list poll.  What the poll did not make clear, so what I failed to understand, was that I was only voting for BR-Era compatible ex-This or ex-That, and not the thing that I actually wished for.

 

Six months ago, I thought we might be turning the corner to see more inclusive releases that supported a wider range of periods.  I believe that I have seen enough since then to persuade me that Red Box, Blue Box and the big Retail Commissioners are absolutely wedded to the BR period for steam outline to the exclusion of anything that would require a tooling variation.     

 

So, kits and scratch-building are the way forward, but I don't think I should concede the point that RTR should not be expected to do better and help to foster the pre-Grouping market. 

 

RTR could, and should, be part of a mix, including all kit and scratch-building media (new and traditional), that promotes interest in early periods through the medium of modelling!  

[J C Fenton]

Agree.  I suspect you are correct to suggest that modellers over-estimate the numbers of BR coaches, and probably Grouping designs too.  I don't study the Fifties, but from what I have seen (usually when researching a location, as this is the most common decade for photographs of most places) my impression is that a lot of pre-Grouping coaches were still kicking around and that RTR-populated layouts do not have a representative selection of coaching stock.  I don't know the specifics, though. 

 

We do know that RTR manufacturers will go to earlier prototypes to fuel Fifties/Sixties coverage.  Disappointingly, they will not currently cater for an earlier period of a loco or vehicle's history if that requires different tooling options from the BR version.  This I feel is a great shame and I think should be argued against.  Take the Southern constituents:

 

• With items such as the LSW M7, the SECR C Class, the SECR Birdcages, and the LBSC E4, we are fortunate that only livery changes were necessary in order to give a pre-Grouping version;
• With the LSW T9, Class 700 (Hornby), Adams Radial (Hornby & Oxford), Gate Sock (Kernow), Maunsell rebuilds (Hornby), LBSC Atlantic (Bachmann), we are unfortunate that the BR appearance was created in the Grouping Era and absolutely Zero, Zip, Nothing, has been done to cater for the possibility of pre-Grouping versions.  

A similar point can no doubt be made in relation to other areas, e.g. the definitely ex nature of the ex-GER loco models that have recently been released or announced.

 

I voted for a lot of the models that have since been released in the BRM wish-list poll.  What the poll did not make clear, so what I failed to understand, was that I was only voting for BR-Era compatible ex-This or ex-That, and not the thing that I actually wished for.

 

Six months ago, I thought we might be turning the corner to see more inclusive releases that supported a wider range of periods.  I believe that I have seen enough since then to persuade me that Red Box, Blue Box and the big Retail Commissioners are absolutely wedded to the BR period for steam outline to the exclusion of anything that would require a tooling variation.     

 

So, kits and scratch-building are the way forward, but I don't think I should concede the point that RTR should not be expected to do better and help to foster the pre-Grouping market. 

 

RTR could, and should, be part of a mix, including all kit and scratch-building media (new and traditional), that promotes interest in early periods through the medium of modelling!  

 

Yep.  I could model the line I want in LNER days using RTR locos (those ex GE,) but without representative coaches.  I really want to model it in GE/GN days.  Not a chance!  I am forced to model a later period or have a layout years away from anything running on it.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 With very limited coverage of BIg Four produced coach stock in OO RTR, hopes for pre-group types are very limited indeed, much though I too would like to see it. We have had the bonny little N2 available RTR now nearing forty years, yet of the clearly pre-group design origin Quad-arts this class is inseparably associated with, nada. Yet these coaches cattle boxes were in service until 1966, memorably with gutless BR pilot scheme diesel traction failing to make noticeably better speed than steam achieved with them.

[Jol Wilkinson]

 With very limited coverage of BIg Four produced coach stock in OO RTR, hopes for pre-group types are very limited indeed, much though I too would like to see it. We have had the bonny little N2 available RTR now nearing forty years, yet of the clearly pre-group design origin Quad-arts this class is inseparably associated with, nada. Yet these coaches cattle boxes were in service until 1966, memorably with gutless BR pilot scheme diesel traction failing to make noticeably better speed than steam achieved with them.

Didn't Hornby Dublo do the N2 and a two coach articluated  LNER teak rake? You started railway modelling too late.

 

[Edwardian]

 With very limited coverage of BIg Four produced coach stock in OO RTR, hopes for pre-group types are very limited indeed, much though I too would like to see it. We have had the bonny little N2 available RTR now nearing forty years, yet of the clearly pre-group design origin Quad-arts this class is inseparably associated with, nada. Yet these coaches cattle boxes were in service until 1966, memorably with gutless BR pilot scheme diesel traction failing to make noticeably better speed than steam achieved with them.

 

Agreed, but LNER Quads were available for years from Ian Kirk kits, so a disincentive for RTR manufacturers.  I believe the GN had quads or quints (sorry, no expert here), but I don't think these were covered.

 

Of course, the Ian Kirk coaches have disappeared into that black hole of mystery we know as "Coopercraft".

[steve1]

No-one has mentioned Broad Gauge I notice.

 

The Broad Gauge Society flourishes and produces just about everything needed to get a modeller started. Mind you, it is, I agree, highly unlikely that any manufacturer would produce anything RTR in BG though.

 

In the dim and distant past I was one of a group that built a dual gauge layout that was quite a success, if short lived. Luckily on of us was an engineer and handled the 'difficult' stuff, which included scratchbuilding a BG 'Tiny' 0-4-0 and converting a K's Rover (that we nicknamed Spot) into a working model.

 

I have had in the back of my mind for years the idea of building a mid 19th century layout of freight only; what railways were actually built for!  It would make for an interesting and enjoyable micro I reckon.

 

steve

[BG John]

No-one has mentioned Broad Gauge I notice.

I usually get round to mentioning it in topics like this .

 

In the dim and distant past I was one of a group that built a dual gauge layout that was quite a success, if short lived. Luckily on of us was an engineer and handled the 'difficult' stuff, which included scratchbuilding a BG 'Tiny' 0-4-0 and converting a K's Rover (that we nicknamed Spot) into a working model.

 

steve

I'm not sure Tiny hauled passenger trains in real life!

 

 

PS: The layout was nothing to do with me. I just went to the pub with the reprobates who built it!