RTR North Eastern Railway Locomotives - A discussion.

[Regularity]

A Class C (please, Simon, think of where you are!) would the top of my list. Any later NER 0-6-0 is optional.

True, in which case I need to correct you: it’s a C1.

[Edwardian]

Simon, you merely compound your error with that statement!  

 

Plenty had yet to be rebuilt as simples  during my period of interest.

[Jol Wilkinson]

True, in which case I need to correct you: it’s a C1.

This is a C, or it could be a C1. The cylinder diameters were the difference.

 

Oh, not NER? Never mind.

 

[Edwardian]

There might be one or three lurking among this lot!

[Regularity]

Simon, you merely compound your error with that statement!

 

Plenty had yet to be rebuilt as simples during my period of interest.

But given my name, you will understand why I was thinking of the simples only - and they were the only ones to be called J21, I think?

[The Black Hat]

There might be one or three lurking among this lot!

That lot look totally hideous! Makes me more sure that NER built, designed and operated far better machines on much harder duties.

 

Still, each to their own...

[The Black Hat]

All RTR models presumably have commercial potential otherwise the manufacturers would not have invested in them but it seems that the more unusual or rare attract most interest. The recent 4mm poll gave an indication of that.

 

This will no doubt sell well, as did the NRM/Rapido Stirling Single, helped by being a one off. It  may well  lead the RTR manufacturers to produce other models of preserved NER locos, as they can capitalise on the interest created for the NER with this, the NER O/LNER G5, etc. How quickly they will be introduced, given the design and production lead times and demand for models from other railways is a somewhat bigger question.

 

I have some more to go on Eastern Region statistics and numbers before I return to that theme again later. I expect it will prove interesting (as I'm just looking over some of the results of the data now).

[Edwardian]

Simon, that is probably quite correct, but anything after 1923 .... 

 

Black Hat, glad the tact bypass operation was a success for you.

[Regularity]

Simon, that is probably quite correct, but anything after 1923 .... 

 

Well, technically speaking, after 1922 because generally speaking, the Grouping Act took effect on January 1st 1923. Although of course, there were earlier and later merging - the Mid Suffolk was not grouped until July 1924, the Bishops Castle was not grouped at all, neither were many other minor and private lines. If you wish to be precise, you must also be accurate…

 

As a more useful aside, other than the cylinder end plates - hidden below the footplate and ash cover on most models so not modelled anyway - was there any visible difference between a C and a C1?

[sem34090]

That lot look totally hideous! Makes me more sure that NER built, designed and operated far better machines on much harder duties.

 

Still, each to their own...

Woah... woah. I don't go around insulting the beautiful machines of the North, play nice and don't insult our beautiful machines of the South.

You produced some potential uglies too...

I personally find the LBSCR K a hideous loco, but I don't think anyone can truly call this hideous:

LBSCR C1...

And I understand that some may find the SECR Wainwright livery garish, so we'll strip that away:

So don't start throwing stones! Just because we've been lucky enough to get models doesn't mean you have to slate our locos! They're every bit as worthy as yours, and all of them are better than this:

Incidentally, I was thinking about what companies can be most easily recreated using off-the shelf products...

 

SECR -

H Class (Passenger Tank)

P Class (Shunting/Small Goods loco)

C Class (Goods Loco)

N Class (Mixed Traffic Loco)

I can't think of any other SECR locos on the market currently. Or set to be released. The N is a bit late for many of us.

 

NER -

O Class (Passenger Tank)

E1 Class (Shunting/Small Goods loco)

T2 (Heavy Goods Loco, albeit one in need of subtle modification)

Autocar (Light passenger duties.)

Now, I get that the T2 and autocar are a bit too late for most pre-groupers, but get yourselves a C/C1 done and you'll be on a par with, if not slightly higher than the SECR on the loco front.

 

SECR -

No actual SECR wagons available. Only reliveries.

No actual SECR Brake Vans available.

SECR Birdcage Coaches (with no ideally suitable loco to pull them in the SECR period)

 

NER -

No actual NER wagons available.

No actual NER Brake Vans available, BUT LNER Toad B from Hornby may be able to e suitably modified.

No actual NER coaches available apart from Dynamometer Car (which is useless to most people, especially pre-groupers)

 

So the NER does lag behind on the coach front.

 

You're not doing too badly of late, and hopefully the upward trend will continue to be upward!

[Compound2632]

The comparison between the North Eastern - one of the pre-Grouping "big four" - and the Chatham is illuminating. About the only similarity between the two companies I can see is that each occupied, roughly speaking, the territory of an Anglo-Saxon kingdom.

[Edwardian]

The designs of the Brothers Worsdell, it is easy to forget, were first seen in the 1880s, and very clean and modern for that time they were.  To my mind, they did not date. 

[sem34090]

I understand that, but the main speaker of the NER cause seems to suggest that the SECR, or at least 'The Southern Companies', have more locos than the NER currently available in RTR form. I agree, the Southern Companies as a whole have more available, but together they make up one of the big four, and even the Southern had a territory that stretched for a good distance. I think the cause for NER stock is a good one, but there's no need to take pot shots at the Southern locos simply because there aren't enough NER ones!

Besides, how well is the LNWR represented? Another huge company, but currently I can only think of one truly useful RTR loco for the LNWR modeller. For the pre-grouper, the Midland doesn't fare much better, though ex-Midland modellers have ample choice.

 

And, James, you are quite right. NER, GER - they're all gorgeous. Even the Worsdell Electrics are lovely and elegant!

[Edwardian]

I would agree with everything you say, Sem, in your last two posts, save that I like the K. It is certainly of a later generation than most of the locos that we enthuse over, but I think it is an attractive and well balanced design (and, besides, always reminds me of James the Red Engine!).

[Jol Wilkinson]

 

SECR -

H Class (Passenger Tank)

P Class (Shunting/Small Goods loco)

C Class (Goods Loco)

N Class (Mixed Traffic Loco)

I can't think of any other SECR locos on the market currently. Or set to be released. The N is a bit late for many of us.

 

NER -

O Class (Passenger Tank)

E1 Class (Shunting/Small Goods loco)

T2 (Heavy Goods Loco, albeit one in need of subtle modification)

Autocar (Light passenger duties.)

Now, I get that the T2 and autocar are a bit too late for most pre-groupers, but get yourselves a C/C1 done and you'll be on a par with, if not slightly higher than the SECR on the loco front.

 

SECR -

No actual SECR wagons available. Only reliveries.

No actual SECR Brake Vans available.

SECR Birdcage Coaches (with no ideally suitable loco to pull them in the SECR period)

 

NER -

No actual NER wagons available.

No actual NER Brake Vans available, BUT LNER Toad B from Hornby may be able to e suitably modified.

No actual NER coaches available apart from Dynamometer Car (which is useless to most people, especially pre-groupers)

 

So the NER does lag behind on the coach front.

 

You're not doing too badly of late, and hopefully the upward trend will continue to be upward!

I think that clearly illustrates the focus buyers put on loco. Also that locomotives are better sellers/more profitable for the manufacturers/commissioners. The NRM for example have concentrated almost totally on locomotives, although they must surely have some other rolling stock ( finding what else is in their collection online seems to be impossible).

 

I also have no doubt that the preferred approach is to 3D scan a preserved artifact, which puts carriages, etc. at something of a disadvantage as not so many that would make up a representative selection of stock have been preserved. 

 

At the risk of committing heresy, I should point out that the 4mm kit manufacturers do have a wide range of models that will often fill in the gaps.

[sem34090]

I think that clearly illustrates the focus buyers put on loco. Also that locomotives are better sellers/more profitable for the manufacturers/commissioners. The NRM for example have concentrated almost totally on locomotives, although they must surely have some other rolling stock ( finding what else is in their collection online seems to be impossible).

 

I also have no doubt that the preferred approach is to 3D scan a preserved artifact, which puts carriages, etc. at something of a disadvantage as not so many that would make up a representative selection of stock have been preserved. 

 

At the risk of committing heresy, I should point out that the 4mm kit manufacturers do have a wide range of models that will often fill in the gaps.

That is all very true! Not heresy in the slightest Jol, you make a valid point. I agree that we've disagreed on this in the past, but you're quite right. My main concern with kits has always been one of cost vs ability vs quality of end product. I think some people forget just what good value for money RTR products offer in terms of quality. To buy a kit and finish it is akin to the price of an RTR model, though quite often it's more, but to achieve the same level of finish would require someone to build and paint it who is at the top of their game. I hope, soon, to be able to break into building more brass kits as I was fortunate enough to find a pack of five bodies for MS&LR 6 wheelers, a matching set, for the grand total of £4. If I can build these -essentially scratch-aid- models then I hope to feel more confident about purchasing a more expensive, but more modern and thus hopefully slightly more intuitive kits. At risk of almost pandering to you here, Jol, but I've always felt that LRM seem to offer a better value than some of the other kit manufacturers.

[Jol Wilkinson]

That is all very true! Not heresy in the slightest Jol, you make a valid point. I agree that we've disagreed on this in the past, but you're quite right. My main concern with kits has always been one of cost vs ability vs quality of end product. I think some people forget just what good value for money RTR products offer in terms of quality. To buy a kit and finish it is akin to the price of an RTR model, though quite often it's more, but to achieve the same level of finish would require someone to build and paint it who is at the top of their game. I hope, soon, to be able to break into building more brass kits as I was fortunate enough to find a pack of five bodies for MS&LR 6 wheelers, a matching set, for the grand total of £4. If I can build these -essentially scratch-aid- models then I hope to feel more confident about purchasing a more expensive, but more modern and thus hopefully slightly more intuitive kits. At risk of almost pandering to you here, Jol, but I've always felt that LRM seem to offer a better value than some of the other kit manufacturers.

I can't agree with the view that it is too difficult to paint/finish a kit, especially where wagons are concerned. Even if lining out on a carriage is too difficult, a plain sprayed finish from a rattle can and transfers for numbers, crests, etc. is surely better than totally inappropriate stock or none at all.

[brack]

The comparison between the North Eastern - one of the pre-Grouping "big four" - and the Chatham is illuminating. About the only similarity between the two companies I can see is that each occupied, roughly speaking, the territory of an Anglo-Saxon kingdom.

Yes, we see similar numbers of RTR locos available, yet fail to note that the NER was 3 times bigger than the SECR in terms of route mileage. In fact the NER was almost the same size as the 1923 southern railway in terms of route miles.

 

Sooner or later I'd expect a J21 and J27.

[sem34090]

I can't agree with the view that it is too difficult to paint/finish a kit, especially where wagons are concerned. Even if lining out on a carriage is too difficult, a plain sprayed finish from a rattle can and transfers for numbers, crests, etc. is surely better than totally inappropriate stock or none at all.

I wasn't saying that - you are correct that it's better to have a plainer finish but a correct set of stock - but was suggesting that for some, possibly many, people kits seem a worse proposition to RTR. Some would rather run a loco with hideously inaccurate stock that try and get something vaguely better. I am guilty of this, but am trying to correct myself. I wasn't saying that it's too difficult to paint and finish a kit, but more that to paint and finish a kit to the same standard as RTR is too difficult for some people, and too expensive for others. I was sort of making the point that some people don't realise just how much value for money modern RTR offers.

[Compound2632]

Yes, we see similar numbers of RTR locos available, yet fail to note that the NER was 3 times bigger than the SECR in terms of route mileage. In fact the NER was almost the same size as the 1923 southern railway in terms of route miles.

 

Sooner or later I'd expect a J21 and J27.

 

That was the point I was, obscurely, trying to make. Northumbria was rather bigger than Kent.

 

Re. SEM's point about two of the other companies making up the pre-Grouping "Big Four", the L&NW and the Midland, one has to remember that locomotive designs which survived into the 1950s will continue to be a better proposition for at least the big two RTR manufacturers. The LNER's relative poverty (coupled with the excellence and robustness of the locomotive fleets it inherited) ensured the long-term survival of many late-19th-century classes, particularly among the 0-6-0 goods engines; a similar situation existed on the Southern, where steam was not the focus of investment. Of the two great Mercian companies, the L&NW's engines were swept away in the LMS's great 5MT/8F building programme whilst the Midland's were rebuilt away - into the 2Ps and 3Fs that did survive into the 1950s and hence are represented in RTR form.

 

Of the fourth of the pre-Grouping "Big Four" we need not speak. In fact, of RTR models of its 19th century classes, perhaps the less said the better.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Compound2632

[Jol Wilkinson]

I think most people do appreciate what VFM RTR models represent, especially when discounted in sales such as Hattons are currently holding.

 

Likewise, many don't see the enjoyment gained by making your own unique models and the freedom gained by building a models from kits. I think that is particularly relevant for rolling stock where the selection of RTR models is restricted or inappropriate.

[Regularity]

There might be one or three lurking among this lot!

Sadly, though, no sign (yet?) of a Class C from the M&GN...

[Caley Jim]

On the subject of pre-grouping locos survival,many Caledonian locos survived well into BR days. In fact some were among the last steam locos to be withdrawn. Sadly, only two survive in working order.

 

Jim

[The Black Hat]

I understand that, but the main speaker of the NER cause seems to suggest that the SECR, or at least 'The Southern Companies', have more locos than the NER currently available in RTR form. I agree, the Southern Companies as a whole have more available, but together they make up one of the big four, and even the Southern had a territory that stretched for a good distance. I think the cause for NER stock is a good one, but there's no need to take pot shots at the Southern locos simply because there aren't enough NER ones!

Besides, how well is the LNWR represented? Another huge company, but currently I can only think of one truly useful RTR loco for the LNWR modeller. For the pre-grouper, the Midland doesn't fare much better, though ex-Midland modellers have ample choice.

 

And, James, you are quite right. NER, GER - they're all gorgeous. Even the Worsdell Electrics are lovely and elegant!

 

Main speaker? I guess that's me. Fair enough.

 

Anyway, we are fast heading back to the NER vs Southern discussion, as there have been a swathe of models released for the Southern area since the introduction of the Merchant Navy and arrival of super detail. I accept the point that others have made that before that the South might not have had many models compared with others, but the hobby has seen a massive growth of products during this period.

 

The problem is that people focus solely on steam. They see the steam fleet has been increased significantly for the south and that while many of these are a group standard design for the Southern railway, there are some which are late pre-grouping, or pre-grouping designs that have been done. Furthermore, the small pre-grouping areas that made up the companies prior to the formation of the Southern railway means that it flies in the face of the logic thus far that sees the rationale being that engines selected for production should have a wide geographical coverage and liveries that can date the engine into the popular transition period. Granted many of the engines made do that, but they are from small areas in pre-grouping that only spread when the Southern railway was formed, such as the LSWR S15. There are plenty of other engines that are made and didn't move far, such as the Terrier, P-class and Adams radial.

 

Theres also all the third rail units and engines, that were built which are no use for those modelling elsewhere. Sure people mention something similar occasionally was used elsewhere but its definitely the exception. Its taking up more production slots allocated for the South when everyone else looses out.

 

But, your fast getting to a point I am looking to make later, about other pre-grouping areas and comparisons between them all. Hopefully, wont be long before I get to that.

[sem34090]

Main speaker? I guess that's me. Fair enough.

 

Anyway, we are fast heading back to the NER vs Southern discussion, as there have been a swathe of models released for the Southern area since the introduction of the Merchant Navy and arrival of super detail. I accept the point that others have made that before that the South might not have had many models compared with others, but the hobby has seen a massive growth of products during this period.

 

The problem is that people focus solely on steam. They see the steam fleet has been increased significantly for the south and that while many of these are a group standard design for the Southern railway, there are some which are late pre-grouping, or pre-grouping designs that have been done. Furthermore, the small pre-grouping areas that made up the companies prior to the formation of the Southern railway means that it flies in the face of the logic thus far that sees the rationale being that engines selected for production should have a wide geographical coverage and liveries that can date the engine into the popular transition period. Granted many of the engines made do that, but they are from small areas in pre-grouping that only spread when the Southern railway was formed, such as the LSWR S15. There are plenty of other engines that are made and didn't move far, such as the Terrier, P-class and Adams radial.

 

Theres also all the third rail units and engines, that were built which are no use for those modelling elsewhere. Sure people mention something similar occasionally was used elsewhere but its definitely the exception. Its taking up more production slots allocated for the South when everyone else looses out.

 

But, your fast getting to a point I am looking to make later, about other pre-grouping areas and comparisons between them all. Hopefully, wont be long before I get to that.

Firstly, I still think it's unfair of you to compare the NER with the Southern. Granted, they were of similar size as it happened, but a Rebuilt Merchant Navy is hardly any use to anyone other than a BR(S) modeller is it? I've always held the belief that locos of the longest lives (preferably long enough to have seen a pretty pre-grouping livery) would be the best choices, and the NER is full of those. There is no LSWR S15 available. An LSWR S15 could be bashed from the RTR model, but it certainly isn't a pre-grouping machine as-produced. Same goes for the N15. The Terriers, although not widespread in the grand scheme of British Railways became far more widespread than you give them credit for!

- Almost the entirety of the LBSCR system saw them at various points.

- The LSWR had two, which got them as far West as Lyme Regis.

- The SECR had one which took the class as far East as the Isle of Sheppey.

- The KE&SR had a couple, taking them deep into SECR territory.

- The S&MR had a couple, taking them to Wales.

- The WC&PR took them to Somerset.

- The Government saw some transferred to Scotland.

- A few saw use in the building of the GCR London Extension.

- A couple were sent to Argentina.

- And 'Brighton' was sent to the Paris Exhibition, won a gold medal.

- Several were sold to the Isle of Wight Companies.

- More were transferred to the Isle of Wight by the Southern.

It was only in BR days that they began to shrink back to the LBSCR lines again, with the final stronghold being Hayling Island. The terriers were spreading from very soon after the turn of the century, indeed most of the spreading had been done by SR days! The first terriers were scrapped in the 1900s... Now, the P's and 415's I agree with you on, despite owning a model of each. Those were far more geographically limited than the terriers, with the most adventurous 415 being the preserved one, making it as far East as the East Kent Railway, and the most adventurous P's being the ones which headed to France during the Great War. Oh, and 178 which has spent some time in preservation up in NER territory. But that doesn't count.

 

Now, I agree with your point on SR electrics, much as I love them myself. The only one which is of even the remotest use for another region is the 2-EPB. You say that something similar was used on other regions, but Bachmann have (I believe) tooled specifically for the ones of almost identical design that were used on the Tyneside Electric lines, albeit with the Southern-style headcode panel. But those are of no use to an NER modeller, but they're also of no use to a Southern modeller or any Pre-Grouping modeller! We must remember that we are discussing NER locos NOT locos used on the ex-NER lines.

 

All I can say is that us pre-grouping Southern modellers haven't had it all our own way. Indeed, I think the plethora of ex-LSWR locos is far more frustrating than if there were no ex-LSWR locos! The only LSWR models available are the M7 and 415. I hope, however, that more NER stuff becomes available before too long. It may put this whole argument to bed. It shouldn't be NER vs SR... How about NER vs GER? There's a lot of GER (Well, ex-GER) stuff available these days to the point that there's even appropriate coaching stock for use on ex-GER lines (if one models the BR period). Or NER vs ex-Midland?