RTR North Eastern Railway Locomotives - A discussion.

[R Marshall]

I was disappointed to find, on a visit last August, that the preserved wagons at Beamish are in a poor state compared to most of the other exhibits there.

And they allowed the J21 to get into terrible condition before giving it away.

[The Black Hat]

Hello everyone

 

Just for info...

 

In the 2016 Poll, the A5 was listed simply as the A5, but - in the forthcoming 2018 Poll - it will be listed as A5/1 & A5/2 (see below). The Guide text will explain the relevance of that change. (Incidentally, the change was proposed by a contributor to what was the old MREmag, and we responded with the changes accordingly.)

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

4-6-2T GCR A5 (69800-69842)

4-6-2T GCR A5/1 & A5/2 (69800-69829, 69830-69842)

 

 

Is there any reason why this is done? The B16 has the same with its position in the poll, which I then think gives it an unfair position and looks like demand is less. Its funny as you then get J67/68/69 all grouped up together which I think is unfair by comparison and could actually over compensate their vote and position, thus demand too. 

[BMacdermott]

Hello David

 

I think you are possibly misunderstanding the posting...

 

The A5s were listed as - simply - A5, but will now be listed as A5/1 & A5/2 as one entry. Just a clarification.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[The Black Hat]

Hello David

 

I think you are possibly misunderstanding the posting...

 

The A5s were listed as - simply - A5, but will now be listed as A5/1 & A5/2 as one entry. Just a clarification.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

Ah right. Cheers Brian. 

 

I guess B16 is split because it is rebuilt, and some engines in the poll do similar, like WC/BOB etc. But doesnt explain why we have J67/68/69 gets grouped up together, there must be some subtle changes, as even with a J72 we still have J71 on its own in the poll. 

[BMacdermott]

Thanks David

 

My apologies for not making my original posting clearer.

 

We do, indeed, split the B16/1 from the (combined) B16/2 & B16/3 as we believe that is how a maker might approach the subject. In 2016, there were just 14 votes separating the two listings (although it was 26 in 2015 and 31 in 2014).

 

We have done similar with Caprotti Black 5, LMS Caprotti Black 5, Claud Hamilton Decorative Valance etc. We decided to keep the J67/68/69 combined. The extract below may help explain. Sadly, The Poll can never be 'an exact science', as there are so many mitigating factors. Over the years, we have listened to suggestions or observed how locos are actually being produced and worked accordingly.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

There were other detail differences and most locos had high cab roofs by Nationalisation (those that didn't were locos which had been transferred to Scotland). To complicate matters, the J69s weren’t split into J69/1 and J69/2 until 1952. Overall, The Poll Team believes that the J69/1 would be most representative, there being over 80 examples in the mid-1950s.

[gc4946]

I currently own a Bachmann J72 and understand why it's been in their range for years because of its liveries and examples served in Scotland, north Wales and the Wirral.

 

Following on from Hornby's Q6 I'd go for a J21 - they often hauled passenger trains and examples worked on ex-Great Eastern lines during the 30s, they were long-lived, until 1962, also one is preserved https://www.lner.info/locos/J/j21.php

[PenrithBeacon]

Very much off topic but I'd like to see Hornby do a revised J52. Man/maid of all work for the smaller layout

[Jol Wilkinson]

Hello Jol

 

As noted earlier, the discussion of 'RTR vs Kits' is off topic. 

 

You have had your say; we have heard the message; and there is no need to repeat it again (and again,and again).

 

Brian

Brian,

 

it's off topic, but relevant if you want to model the NER (or other railways) in greater depth than the RTR manufactures provide.

 

I'll gladly refrain from repeating my message and withdraw from this thread, at your request.

 

Jol

[BMacdermott]

Hello Jol

 

I say again that 'Kits vs RTR' is off topic for a thread entitled 'RTR NER Locos'.

 

Perhaps if you started a new thread entitled 'Kits vs RTR' it would reach a far more appropriate audience? And perhaps one entitled 'Kit making with Jol' where you could expound your theories and enthuse the masses with examples of your work?

 

Regards

 

Brian

[Jol Wilkinson]

Hello Jol

 

I say again that 'Kits vs RTR' is off topic for a thread entitled 'RTR NER Locos'.

 

Perhaps if you started a new thread entitled 'Kits vs RTR' it would reach a far more appropriate audience? And perhaps one entitled 'Kit making with Jol' where you could expound your theories and enthuse the masses with examples of your work?

 

Regards

 

Brian

 

Brian,

 

I hadn't intended to add any more posts to this thread, but your comment calls for a brief reply.

 

I had considered your last point although others, such as Mike Meggison, already have a thread covering building NER locos. A few examples of my work can also be found  here; 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/14518-lnwr-4mm-rolling-stock-for-london-road

 

although most following this thread are probably not interested in LNWR stock (although there is a NER loco on today's update).

 

Perhaps the masses are beyond being enthused anyway, unless what they want turns up in a box from a far eastern factory.

 

Jol

[The Black Hat]

Hello Jol

 

I say again that 'Kits vs RTR' is off topic for a thread entitled 'RTR NER Locos'.

 

Perhaps if you started a new thread entitled 'Kits vs RTR' it would reach a far more appropriate audience? And perhaps one entitled 'Kit making with Jol' where you could expound your theories and enthuse the masses with examples of your work?

 

Regards

 

Brian

 

Kits fall into the whole RTR NER Locos thread as its an area that someone is going to throw at the idea for more RTR NER engines to be made - and indeed, as anticipated some immediately did that.

 

The whole point of me raising this issue in a post was to tackle the issue head on. It does bring to light a number of issues that will be mentioned and then be admitted that these should effect all areas and not just the NER engines or area. These are namely:

 

1. Why should NER followers wanting RTR have to go to kits to get the engines they request - when other areas had classes made by using kits but have had RTR releases made for them and no one bemoaned the fact that the change was taking place.

2. The cost of kit vs RTR release and the way that vs analogue is it different than when you compare kit vs DCC and kit vs DCC sound and lights.

3. The fact that RTR gives better uniformity for your fleet, whereas kit is much harder to achieve this consistently.  

 

These areas have been mentioned, but also need to be so that the kit element can be addressed, discussed and the conversation and analysis move on. Kits are an important and still optional benefit for those running on an analogue system, but few have gone to move these to digital operation, even less with digital sound.

 

The idea for further RTR NER machines is that it would encompass all areas of the hobby, so could still run on analogue, run on a dcc standard chip system, or run on DCC with sound and lights too. that means RTR releases can appeal to all people modelling the area or wishing to purchase an engine, which is an advantage the RTR release would have over a kit built option, regardless of the engines original location or company. However, these area ideas that when you add them to the popularity of the engines in polls, the geographical location and coverage, the engines longevity from pregrouping to end of steam makes NER engines ideal candidates for RTR, better than some of the releases done to date and that's why those that agree want to see them made soon so that we can buy them, so that companies get good sales and so that both are vindicated by others wanting engines from elsewhere.

[Bernard Lamb]

Hello Jol

 

I say again that 'Kits vs RTR' is off topic for a thread entitled 'RTR NER Locos'.

 

Perhaps if you started a new thread entitled 'Kits vs RTR' it would reach a far more appropriate audience? And perhaps one entitled 'Kit making with Jol' where you could expound your theories and enthuse the masses with examples of your work?

 

Regards

 

Brian

 

This forum has always had the habit off wandering off topic. At times the ramblings can be more interesting than the original idea.

It has also always been open to any member to comment as long as they do so within the rules. I take offence at any comment aimed at any member asking him not to continue posting.

Jol has a lot of experience in the hobby and probably has more knowledge of the possible popularity of any proposed model be it RTR or kit.

Even though kits are low on the radar for most people these days there existence or not must have some bearing on popularity of the class of locomotive and company concerned.

I would prefer to see the smaller version of the 0-4-0 T but keep quiet as I know the Y7 will be more popular.

I go back to my earlier comment re pushing for a J21. There is a consensus that this would be popular and if we all shout with one voice we might be heard. After that we can resume this discussion to decide what comes next. Until then it is kits or scratch building.

Bernard

[BMacdermott]

Brian,

 

I hadn't intended to add any more posts to this thread, but your comment calls for a brief reply.

 

I had considered your last point although others, such as Mike Meggison, already have a thread covering building NER locos. A few examples of my work can also be found  here; 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/14518-lnwr-4mm-rolling-stock-for-london-road

 

although most following this thread are probably not interested in LNWR stock (although there is a NER loco on today's update).

 

Perhaps the masses are beyond being enthused anyway, unless what they want turns up in a box from a far eastern factory.

 

Jol

 

 

Many thanks Jol - that is superb and beautiful work! I take my hat off to you!

 

Regards

 

Brian

Edited February 19, 2018 by BMacdermott

[BMacdermott]

This forum has always had the habit off wandering off topic. At times the ramblings can be more interesting than the original idea.

It has also always been open to any member to comment as long as they do so within the rules. I take offence at any comment aimed at any member asking him not to continue posting.

Jol has a lot of experience in the hobby and probably has more knowledge of the possible popularity of any proposed model be it RTR or kit.

Even though kits are low on the radar for most people these days there existence or not must have some bearing on popularity of the class of locomotive and company concerned.

I would prefer to see the smaller version of the 0-4-0 T but keep quiet as I know the Y7 will be more popular.

I go back to my earlier comment re pushing for a J21. There is a consensus that this would be popular and if we all shout with one voice we might be heard. After that we can resume this discussion to decide what comes next. Until then it is kits or scratch building.

Bernard

Hello Bernard

 

I certainly didn't suggest that Jol stop posting. I suggested that he was on the wrong thread for a 'kits vs RTR' discussion. 

 

Brian

[sem34090]

As the OP, I state the following:

 

1.) Discussion of kits isn't really for this thread, and insulting the likes of myself (on an income too limited for kits, and even some RTR now, but are not ignorant of the existence of kits and is trying to find a way of producing my own 3D printed kits at a low price to fill the gaps in my fleet.).

 

2.) I have (or will have within a few minutes!) set up a thread in this section for the above discussion.

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

I thought you might like to see the attached chart.

 

It shows how NER (as used in the broad sense) has gradually settled within the results of the annual Wishlist Poll. It seems to match up with levels of discussion. I did try to count up how many times each type of loco was mentioned in the preceding posts, but there is too much 'cloud' to get any clear impression.

 

None of us in The Team models NER, so we are presenting this for interest.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

NER Locos in The Wishlist Poll 2012-2016.pdf

[Tin Turtle]

I was disappointed to find, on a visit last August, that the preserved wagons at Beamish are in a poor state compared to most of the other exhibits there.

 

On a recent visit it appears a number have been brought inside to dry out before being restored, such as the GWR Mink and 'Birdcage' brake van, also the two NER box vans including the Tranship van are currently being repainted. The Duke of Sutherland saloon has just been outshopped by them and looks superb

[DougN]

Well we need to take the G5 off the list as per TMC's announcement. This is fantastic news.. I really hope TMC do really well and they become the north easts supplier of choice!

[Markeg]

Next The J21

 

Mark

[OOgaugeJaf]

J27 next TMC!! Great news.

[sem34090]

Indeed... only a matter of time until the 0-6-0's now.

 

Not my area of interest, but very happy for all you NER Modellers, particularly those modelling the NER as opposed to BR(NE).

[Blandford1969]

To get more NER locos in ready to run its got to sell well, do that and we may see more. Hopefully a J27 and B16 will follow on,,,

[micklner]

G5 TMC quoting  late 2020 , who knows ,a Hornby version may arrive long before then ? Its happened before ! 18 months is a long time these days.

 

Either way great news.

 

 

It would be nice if they made the chassis available as a spare , my Geo Norton version has always been a pain to get running well !!

[DougN]

Should I point out that 18 months from now is late 2019.... it is only February 2018... currently so in 18 months it will be about October 2019... I know bachmanns record for timeliness is off but to add a year on as well... or have I missed something vital.

[Edwardian]

I agree with all those who say so, it can no longer be premature to expect a NER 0-6-0 class.

 

This is not just due to the announcement of an E1 and O, but because the NER is one of now only a few of significant pre-Grouping companies not represented by an 0-6-0 class, albeit in many cases only late condition ex-pre-Grouping versions have been produced, a situation that the Rails of Sheffield Caley 812 helps to correct, so well done Rails.