TomScrut Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 AS's newsletter that has recently landed in my inbox also has plenty of "hints" about this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanspareil Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 I guess there are for's and against with the modern way of only announcing releases once far down the development road. Before when manufacturers just put a flag in the sand for a future release it may have put others off starting anything themselves (but not always). Now as we see its very possible totally innocently two manufactures spend time and effort on the same item. It then ends with both having reduced sales or one backing off and losing a lot of investment. If this happens too often I cant see it be great for company survival. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted October 13, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 hours ago, adb968008 said: Anyone spot the MGR wagon in that picture ? Is that it trampled underNeil Armstrong's footprint? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted October 13, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 13, 2020 5 hours ago, Bucoops said: Accurascale - going to infinity and beyond RTR Lunar Module in OO? Just as I started building the Airfix kit!! 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Decorum Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said: RTR Lunar Module in OO? Just as I started building the Airfix kit!! Sixteen astronauts and two rovers* in one module. Those chaps were made of sterner stuff than I thought. * Plus an MGR hopper, perhaps. 1 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted October 13, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 13, 2020 20 minutes ago, No Decorum said: Plus an MGR hopper, perhaps Needed the coal to power the rocket, and to keep warm during Lunar nights. 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottrains29 Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 22 hours ago, BR Blue said: Except the HBA is a completely different wagon with no common components and a different wheelbase to the HFA. The HBA and HEA are variants of the same basic design. HAA, HFA and HMA are all from the same family. The HBA is not. It does get confusing I think Surfsup was referring to the HAA based HBA (mgr with hood) rather than the HEA based HBA. It's confusing that two completely different wagon types had the same TOPS code. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted October 13, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, scottrains29 said: It's confusing that two completely different wagon types had the same TOPS code. Just don't look at JGA or PGAs then................................ (Other wagon codes are availabele) Edited October 13, 2020 by newbryford 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BR Blue Posted October 13, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted October 13, 2020 32 minutes ago, scottrains29 said: I think Surfsup was referring to the HAA based HBA (mgr with hood) rather than the HEA based HBA. It's confusing that two completely different wagon types had the same TOPS code. Yes are probably correct. It gets even more confusing. I suppose its common enough under TOPS. Some HAAs became HBAs when covers were added and the original HBAs became HEAs as the suspension was modified. I think that is right. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold farren Posted October 14, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2020 HAA’s = HBA’s & and HBA’s becoming HEA’s.. ok stop it’s not helping. Moving letters about is my job being dyslexic, don’t everyone else start doing it for Christ sake! 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted October 14, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2020 1 minute ago, farren said: HAA’s = HBA’s & and HBA’s becoming HEA’s.. ok stop it’s not helping. Moving letters about is my job being dyslexic, don’t everyone else start doing it for Christ sake! It is all designed to help you, whatever order the letters it will sound like you know what you are talking about Roy 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 14, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2020 10 hours ago, BR Blue said: Yes are probably correct. It gets even more confusing. I suppose its common enough under TOPS. Some HAAs became HBAs when covers were added and the original HBAs became HEAs as the suspension was modified. I think that is right. HAAs with covers definitely became HBAs. The MGR train I borrowed for an afternoon for some timing trials in the early 1990s was formed entirely of HBAs because there was going to be some maximum speed running and Trainload Coal were a bit worried about getting complaints about coal dust being spread over parts of of Wiltshire and Oxfordshire which weren't used to seeing loaded MGR trains. 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 As long as they are both accurate to the real thing, I have no problem with two manufacturers making these. The only problem would be if there was minor differences because of the tooling limitation that would prevent mixing models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmrspaul Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 (edited) The top cape wagons had various codes. Initially HOP32AB became HAA, then HCA . In 1992 HBA was used with some becoming HFA. Top capes seem to have been used mainly in Scotland initially (presumably only certain collieries could load them) and it was the later conversions that were used more generally. Paul https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brhaatopskip Edited October 14, 2020 by hmrspaul 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted October 14, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2020 Seems to me both developed them quietly and we are likely to have two good models on their previous form, there’s no ‘terrier gate’ or ‘shed gate’ just two ending up head to head. Like others have said the MGR is one wagon where there’s probably enough for both 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shunny Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 2 hours ago, hmrspaul said: The top cape wagons had various codes. Initially HOP32AB became HAA, then HCA . In 1992 HBA was used with some becoming HFA. Top capes seem to have been used mainly in Scotland initially (presumably only certain collieries could load them) and it was the later conversions that were used more generally. Paul https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brhaatopskip If I remember correctly part of the reason they were used so much in Scotland was the extra capacity of the wagon increased the load per train as many of the loops on the routes used could not take longer train and many of the lines in central Scotland had limited paths due to more frequent passenger services so extra trains were hard to path. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 So who is going to make almost of what colleries loaded how? Different loading affected how the wagon weathered. Eg the rubber tyre marks down the side, the flat top to the coal, multiple humps of coal etc. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc2016 Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 7 hours ago, cheesysmith said: As long as they are both accurate to the real thing, I have no problem with two manufacturers making these. The only problem would be if there was minor differences because of the tooling limitation that would prevent mixing models. I don't think that there are just two manufacturers making these or more specially the CDAs theres the Hornby version and then i have seen images online of another person measuring up the CDAs that doesn't work for the other three companies (Accurascale, Cavalex & Hornby) but no announcement from them and they do make models so there is potentially 4 models to/have come (1 Older & 3 Newer). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BR Blue Posted October 14, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2020 44 minutes ago, sc2016 said: I don't think that there are just two manufacturers making these or more specially the CDAs theres the Hornby version and then i have seen images online of another person measuring up the CDAs that doesn't work for the other three companies (Accurascale, Cavalex & Hornby) but no announcement from them and they do make models so there is potentially 4 models to/have come (1 Older & 3 Newer). Lego? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbox321 Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 On 11/10/2020 at 21:57, 25901 said: All we need now is Cavalex to announce a range of 00 class 37s. Accurascale vs Cavalex. Hattons vs Bachmann. Rails vs Hornby. Any more entering the ring lol It may have made Warley interesting. Bullet proof vest anyone? Best Wishes, C. P.S. Its not really A/S v Cavalex - It has been commissioned by two retailers and Cavalex are producing it for them. So ultimately the wagon is for the retailers to shift (just like KRS are working with A/S on the 73/9s). I do think with A/S's size they have the best opportunity to develop a much wider portfolio of products around the HAA hopper, in a shorter time frame and if they are £69.99 for a pack of 3 like the PFA's and PCA's then you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realise a rake becomes more financially achievable! Personally,I have enough of the previous Hornby offerings which were purchased many years ago - which I think "shamefully" I will be able to live with - the RRP's back then were £5.49, whilst the 2nd version came in at £8.99! (Not a moan - but to illustrate the reason for the quality/cost compromise). But, yes I expect the modern offerings to be superb in comparison and for them to be hugely popular (although I would possibly have a few CDA's with a decent hood....). The next logical step to accompany the hoppers would probably be an A/S Class 58, with the two previous offerings being so inferior by today's standards! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium MrTea Posted October 14, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 14, 2020 Interesting thread. I have a weird sense of déjà vu about a lot of the comments though. TBH there’s nothing stopping any manufacturer announcing and producing a model of a given prototype (unless there’s a licensing consideration or some sort of IP restriction around replicating the design in 1:43 or 1:76 scale). And why shouldn’t they? If two or three or more companies decide to tool up and sell a model and make it available then that gives us, the modellers, something good: a choice! I really believe that we’re getting spoiled for choice in the last 10 years as far as quality models are concerned, particularly in 00 scale. Once the HAA MGR hopper models become available we’ll be able to decide which manufacturer’s offering we prefer based on the price, the livery and the level of detail. And then in a few years we’ll all be able to complain about how they’re going for ‘silly money’ on eBay! 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfsup Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 23 hours ago, scottrains29 said: I think Surfsup was referring to the HAA based HBA (mgr with hood) rather than the HEA based HBA. It's confusing that two completely different wagon types had the same TOPS code. I was indeed, and thanks to Paul, Mike & others we have an excellent explanation into the minefield of the HAA/HBA/HFA family Certainly more complex than I thought, but unfortunately possibly not enough difference to split the family between either manufacturer. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les_Gregory Posted October 15, 2020 Share Posted October 15, 2020 I think there is one possible split, the published model wagon pictures I've seen so far all fall into the later, heavily internally reinforced at the top of the sides version, easily distinguished from the outside from earlier wagons by the row of rivets along the side about a foot down from the top. The original HOP AB and HOP32 AB had thinner sides at the top but strengthening cross members which gradually became bent and missing until most wagons had completely lost most or all of them, but the sides were still thinner, they had not been reinforced, so a earlier/later type split may be possible. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted October 15, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 15, 2020 13 hours ago, shunny said: If I remember correctly part of the reason they were used so much in Scotland was the extra capacity of the wagon increased the load per train as many of the loops on the routes used could not take longer train and many of the lines in central Scotland had limited paths due to more frequent passenger services so extra trains were hard to path. Purely for dust suppression. The wagons were rated at 32 tons without the hoods so weren't capable of taking any extra loading. Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted October 15, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 15, 2020 12 hours ago, cheesysmith said: So who is going to make almost [a list] of what colleries loaded how? Different loading affected how the wagon weathered. Eg the rubber tyre marks down the side, the flat top to the coal, multiple humps of coal etc. @cheesysmith that would help for the ultimate accuracy, but with a danger of overthinking the whole thing. Meanwhile, do I continue my project of improving my 24 Hornby wagons, or flog them to fund some new models? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now