The J67/68/69 ‘Buckjumper’, By Accurascale

[Islesy]

1 minute ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

I have been assisting one supplier with developing a set of pre-group carriages, starting nearly two years ago. Despite enthusiasm from those involved with the project, it is continually overtaken by other products - usually locomotives - that are considered more commercially viable. So the carriages project remains on the back burner.

Unfortunately, your post contains a statement that nails the subject on its head @Jol Wilkinson "considered more commercially viable"! There are many, many subjects of rolling stock that I would like to see modelled (if not by us, then someone else reliable), but the defining criteria is will they sell in a quantity that delivers a profit for the manufacturer. Sometimes there will be successes, like the Chaldrons, but sometimes a project will be canned, even after its been pared back for costs, as happened to me at H, where the Reid coaches were cancelled after we'd done the research and the CAD.

[The Stationmaster]

I have been witing for a articular vehicle to aoear from one concern for over a year - I had a livery sample to comment on almost exactly 12 months ago.  It is ina production queue behind other items - of motive power.  The motive power items  will undoubtedly sell well and deliver considerable profits for everyone involved.  

 

I'm sure the vehicle will also sell well - in my opinion there's definitely going to be a good market for it.  But however many thousand (hopefully) of the vehicle ar sold it will still not deliver an overall total rate of financial return in such big figures as the sale of a similar number of locos.  It is alas a fact of modern life and we should perhaps be more than grateful that some manufacturers are prepared to take the risk and do the work producing vehicles to standards as high as those they apply to locos.

 

But of course at the end if the market is open to anyone who cares to put their, or their bank's, money where their hopes lie and try to seek out a factory somewhere on the face of the planet which will give them the necessary production slots instead of giving those slots to mobile phones and other consumer goods (even locos) which are more profitable for them than making rolling stock.

[Edwardian]

14 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

The comments regarding appropriate rolling stock are pertinent. It's one thing providing a rather nice loco but commercially, it makes sense to build on that release by making appropriate wagons, coaches etc. Less of an issue with BR locos but for the pre-grouping liveries, without delving into kit building, suitable rtr pregrouping wagons, in this case Great Eastern, would be useful. One open, a brake van, Oxfords van and you have a good start. 

 

Rob

 

I would offer the GER six a side 4-wheel suburban stock built 1898-1903.

 

They were 27' long, which I think is about what the Hattons 4-wheel generics scale out at, but were 9' wide. They also had those distinctively 'Metropolitan' round-topped doors. As they used steel sheeting on the lower body, I would guess that they were painted coach brown rather than finished in varnished teak from the outset, going into crimson from 1919. 

 

With the round-top door, and width, with recessed doors, I think they are distinctive enough to appeal. 

 

 

You would need to produce just 3 bodies, assuming I am correct in supposing no physical exterior difference between the thirds and seconds, making up a long suburban train with more than one of each:

 

- 4-compartment 1st (Dia. 113)

- 5-compartment 2nd (Dia. 308)

- 5-compartment 3rd (Dia. 408)

- 2-compartment Brake 3rd (Dia 520 or 522) There were two 2-compartment variants and these were seemingly more prevelant than the 3-compartment version (Dia. 521)

 

 

 

 

 

[nightstar.train]

11 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

I would offer the GER six a side 4-wheel suburban stock built 1898-1903.

 

They were 27' long, which I think is about what the Hattons 4-wheel generics scale out at, but were 9' wide. They also had those distinctively 'Metropolitan' round-topped doors. As they used steel sheeting on the lower body, I would guess that they were painted coach brown rather than finished in varnished teak from the outset, going into crimson from 1919. 

 

With the round-top door, and width, with recessed doors, I think they are distinctive enough to appeal. 

 

 

You would need to produce just 3 bodies, assuming I am correct in supposing no physical exterior difference between the thirds and seconds, making up a long suburban train with more than one of each:

 

- 4-compartment 1st (Dia. 113)

- 5-compartment 2nd (Dia. 308)

- 5-compartment 3rd (Dia. 408)

- 2-compartment Brake 3rd (Dia 520 or 522) There were two 2-compartment variants and these were seemingly more prevelant than the 3-compartment version (Dia. 521)

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it comes back to commercial viability. even tooling "just 3 bodies" will cost (from the little I've gleaned from this forum) high five figures or even into six figures. How many would you have to sell and at what price to get a return? And would enough people pay when there are pretty good generics from Hornby and Hattons? I think the answers to that is no. 

[PhilJ W]

33 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

I would offer the GER six a side 4-wheel suburban stock built 1898-1903.

 

They were 27' long, which I think is about what the Hattons 4-wheel generics scale out at, but were 9' wide. They also had those distinctively 'Metropolitan' round-topped doors. As they used steel sheeting on the lower body, I would guess that they were painted coach brown rather than finished in varnished teak from the outset, going into crimson from 1919. 

 

With the round-top door, and width, with recessed doors, I think they are distinctive enough to appeal. 

 

 

You would need to produce just 3 bodies, assuming I am correct in supposing no physical exterior difference between the thirds and seconds, making up a long suburban train with more than one of each:

 

- 4-compartment 1st (Dia. 113)

- 5-compartment 2nd (Dia. 308)

- 5-compartment 3rd (Dia. 408)

- 2-compartment Brake 3rd (Dia 520 or 522) There were two 2-compartment variants and these were seemingly more prevelant than the 3-compartment version (Dia. 521)

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, nightstar.train said:

 

But it comes back to commercial viability. even tooling "just 3 bodies" will cost (from the little I've gleaned from this forum) high five figures or even into six figures. How many would you have to sell and at what price to get a return? And would enough people pay when there are pretty good generics from Hornby and Hattons? I think the answers to that is no. 

Can the sides be removed from the Hattons and/or Hornby generic coaches? If so there's got to be a market for replacement alternative sides.  

[45568]

13 hours ago, Islesy said:

 where the Reid coaches were cancelled after we'd done the research and the CAD.

This is the first I, (and I suspect many others), have heard of this. Were these NBR coaches for use with the J36, some of which lasted into the 1950s?

Cheers from WestOz,

Peter C.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, nightstar.train said:

 

But it comes back to commercial viability. even tooling "just 3 bodies" will cost (from the little I've gleaned from this forum) high five figures or even into six figures. How many would you have to sell and at what price to get a return? And would enough people pay when there are pretty good generics from Hornby and Hattons? I think the answers to that is no. 

 

Of course, I know this. But the question was posed regarding a suitable 'go-with' and that was my suggestion. If the W&U 4-wheelers are not reckoned viable - and I quite see that would be the case - all similar proposals are likely to be similarly doomed, until one isn't, that is.

 

When you consider the number of J67-9 variants proposed and the existence of the Oxford loco, the suggestion is not as far-fetched as some. Could it reach the viability threshhold for injection moulded tooling? That has to remain doubtful, but if Accurascale used a set of, say, four or five of these short coaches in train packs including each of the loco classes/sub-classes proposed, much as Hornby has done with it's Liverpool & Manchester stuff .... 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Edwardian
Spelling!

[Islesy]

7 hours ago, 45568 said:

This is the first I, (and I suspect many others), have heard of this. Were these NBR coaches for use with the J36, some of which lasted into the 1950s?

Cheers from WestOz,

Peter C.

They were, yes, and that was the rationale behind doing them as well.

[Downer]

But now that we have, for better or worse, the Hattons generic four and six-wheelers, I would be more interested in seeing some pre-grouping bogie coaches produced.

[Edwardian]

7 minutes ago, Downer said:

But now that we have, for better or worse, the Hattons generic four and six-wheelers, I would be more interested in seeing some pre-grouping bogie coaches produced.

 

Be careful what you wish for

[Bucoops]

10 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

I would offer the GER six a side 4-wheel suburban stock built 1898-1903.

 

They were 27' long, which I think is about what the Hattons 4-wheel generics scale out at, but were 9' wide. They also had those distinctively 'Metropolitan' round-topped doors. As they used steel sheeting on the lower body, I would guess that they were painted coach brown rather than finished in varnished teak from the outset, going into crimson from 1919. 

 

With the round-top door, and width, with recessed doors, I think they are distinctive enough to appeal. 

 

 

You would need to produce just 3 bodies, assuming I am correct in supposing no physical exterior difference between the thirds and seconds, making up a long suburban train with more than one of each:

 

- 4-compartment 1st (Dia. 113)

- 5-compartment 2nd (Dia. 308)

- 5-compartment 3rd (Dia. 408)

- 2-compartment Brake 3rd (Dia 520 or 522) There were two 2-compartment variants and these were seemingly more prevelant than the 3-compartment version (Dia. 521)

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you can use two bodies on a bogie underframe to produce coaches that lasted until post ww2.

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

And you can use two bodies on a bogie underframe to produce coaches that lasted until post ww2.

 

But I think this was a limited run of carriages, and whether it would save more than some CAD work I am not sure.

 

The 4-wheelers seemed to dominate Chingford, Enfield, Palace Gates and North Woolwich at Grouping, the GER having never built enough bogie coaches to supplant them. As it's not really my period of interest, I do not know how long it took the cash-strapped LNER to replace them.

 

The alternative are GER bogie suburban coaches. Thus I suspect one might find pre-Grouping types lasting into BR, albeit at leaving pre-Great War modeller (in this case the pre-1911 modeller, and even then excluding anyone not depicting the Loughton line) in the lurch, as the need, actual or perceived, to accommodate the BR modeller so often does.   A suite of 54' bogie coaches seems a more ambitious and expensive proposition. 

 

But here we are with the weird way this works. I am delighted to see Dapol release GWR toplights, yet they have chosen the objectively least useful set they could. These sets are so late (1921) so as to be practically Grouping era coaches, and they were used only on certain very specific suburban services out of London.  There is relatively little GWR motive power suitable for them - really nothing for the earlier liveries of the release and it's not until the '30s that there is really a go-with engine. They don't even look similar to coaches used elsewhere on the GWR; you would be better getting Hattons Genesis coaches to pass as GWR coaches on local services outside the Smoke than running the Dapol toplights away from their defined territory. They are just really niche! In many ways they have much less utility than, say, a set of Holden and Hill 54' GER bogie suburbans.

 

What they have going for them is the degree of commonality of tooling permitted by the set. That explains why Dapol can afford to make these sets, yet does not explain why sufficient people should want one!

Yet, they seem to be excellent models. They have received excellent reviews. RMWeb has noticed them, and there is a buzz surrounding them. They are things of beauty.

 

 

 

 

In stark contrast I have not seen such a buzz in relation to the hopelessly under-promoted EFE Rail LSWR set in pre-Grouping livery.

 

This EFE set represents coaches used all over the LSWR system from 1906 on a variety of services, indeed, I suggest there is no modeller of LSWR or ex-LSWR lines post 1906 who could not justify a set of these. There are some RTR choices for go-with motive power in LSWR days and many more for Southern days and beyond. It is the antithesis of the Dapol toplight set in these regards.  It is a genuinely useful set and I therefore actually have a use for such a set.

 

Nevertheless, I still managed not to hear about them until last week, so relatively discrete has been their release!  

 

Compound of this parish mentioned the EFE coaches en passant, and I immediately ordered some as they were starting to become sold out. These are stunning, by the way, and serve as a great example of a pre-Grouping bogie set of genuine utlility:

 

 

 

In contrast, I have wrestled with buying the Dapol set. I'd love to have them. One day I might. Two sets in lined lake would be a thing of beauty, but I cannot possibly find any use for them. Yet, I assume, they will nevertheless sell in sufficient numbers. Why?  

 

Is it because they are Great Western? Is it because they have been properly promoted?

 

Here, with so many versions of the GER/LNER J tanks announced, and with the Oxford Rail K85/N7 released, there is an abundance of motive power suited to GER suburban coaches. 

 

Objectively, I suspect a set of Holden 4-wheel six a sides or Holden and Hill 54' bogie suburbans would have been more widespread and have more utility on GER lines than Dapol's Mainline and City toplights did on GWR lines. Logically, therefore, they should be the better choice for the manufacturer.  Logic, though, seems to have little to do with what people will buy!

 

Hence my suggestion of train packs, of selling the carriages in a set with the locomotive. That might overcome inertia in people committing to the coaches in a loco-centric hobby.

 

If certain versions of each release only came, or initially only came, with the coaches, that might work. Of course, there will always be some people who object, but the complaint that "you made me buy a set of the only coaches available that match my R24, you b*st*rd!" is probably one I could live with if I were Accurascale!

 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Edwardian
Spelling!

[Bucoops]

They converted quite a few - 260 4 wheelers were made into 130 54ft bogie coaches:

 

 

The ones built as bogie coaches from new had square topped doors but were otherwise visually very similar.

 

[Edwardian]

4 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

They converted quite a few - 260 4 wheelers were made into 130 54ft bogie coaches:

 

 

The ones built as bogie coaches from new had square topped doors but were otherwise visually very similar.

 

 

I don't disagree, but I suspect that doing more than one type represents limited savings on toolings. For instance, a bogie carriage body, say of a 10-compartment third, is perhaps not easily produced when you have tooled for a 4-wheel 5-compartment third, you cannot literally stick two of the latter together to make one of the former. You still need two sets of tooling, presumably.

 

Of course, given the same style and compartment spacing, it would, presumably, be less effort to produce CAD for both 4-wheel and bogie versions, but I suspect that's all the saving you'd get.

 

You might, might, persuade a manufacturer that one set of matching suburban stock is worth the risk, but I suspect that is the outer limit of ambition here. 

[Bucoops]

You would need different underframe tooling of course, and then a plain (no beading) end and the roof.

 

The joint on the real ones were just covered with a panel

 

 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

But I think this was a limited run of carriages, and whether it would save more than some CAD work I am not sure.

 

The 4-wheelers seemed to dominate Chingford, Enfield, Palace Gates and North Woolwich at Grouping, the GER having never built enough bogie coaches to supplant them. As it's not really my period of interest, I do not know how long it took the cash-strapped LNER to replace them.

 

The alternative are GER bogie suburban coaches. Thus I suspect one might find pre-Grouping types lasting into BR, albeit at leaving pre-Great War modeller (in this case the pre-1911 modeller, and even then excluding anyone not depicting the Loughton line) in the lurch, as the need, actual or perceived, to accommodate the BR modeller so often does.   A suite of 54' bogie coaches seems a more ambitious and expensive proposition. 

 

But here we are with the weird way this works. I am delighted to see Dapol release GWR toplights, yet they have chosen the objectively least useful set they could. These sets are so late (1921) so as to be practically Grouping era coaches, and they were used only on certain very specific suburban services out of London.  There is relatively little GWR motive power suitable for them - really nothing for the earlier liveries of the release and it's not until the '30s that there is really a go-with engine. They don't even look similar to coaches used elsewhere on the GWR; you would be better getting Hattons Genesis coaches to pass as GWR coaches on local services outside the Smoke than running the Dapol toplights away from their defined territory. They are just really niche! In many ways they have much less utility than, say, a set of Holden and Hill 54' GER bogie suburbans.

 

What they have going for them is the degree of commonality of tooling permitted by the set. That explains why Dapol can afford to make these sets, yet does not explain why sufficient people should want one!

Yet, they seem to be excellent models. They have received excellent reviews. RMWeb has noticed them, and there is a buzz surrounding them. They are things of beauty.

 

 

 

 

In stark contrast I have not seen such a buzz in relation to the hopelessly under-promoted EFE Rail LSWR set in pre-Grouping livery.

 

This EFE set represents coaches used all over the LSWR system from 1906 on a variety of services, indeed, I suggest there is no modeller of LSWR or ex-LSWR lines post 1906 who could not justify a set of these. There are some RTR choices for go-with motive power in LSWR days and many more for Southern days and beyond. It is the antithesis of the Dapol toplight set in these regards.  It is a genuinely useful set and I therefore actually have a use for such a set.

 

Nevertheless, I still managed not to hear about them until last week, so relatively discrete has been their release!  

 

Compound of this parish mentioned the EFE coaches en passant, and I immediately ordered some as they were starting to become sold out. These are stunning, by the way, and serve as a great example of a pre-Grouping bogie set of genuine utlility:

 

 

 

In contrast, I have wrestled with buying the Dapol set. I'd love to have them. One day I might. Two sets in lined lake would be a thing of beauty, but I cannot possibly find any use for them. Yet, I assume, they will nevertheless sell in sufficient numbers. Why?  

 

Is it because they are Great Western? Is it because they have been properly promoted?

 

Here, with so many versions of the GER/LNER J tanks announced, and with the Oxford Rail K85/N7 released, there is an abundance of motive power suited to GER suburban coaches. 

 

Objectively, I suspect a set of Holden 4-wheel six a sides or Holden and Hill 54' bogie suburbans would have been more widespread and have more utility on GER lines than Dapol's Mainline and City toplights did on GWR lines. Logically, therefore, they should be the better choice for the manufacturer.  Logic, though, seems to have little to do with what people will buy!

 

Hence my suggestion of train packs, of selling the carriages in a set with the locomotive. That might overcome inertia in people committing to the coaches in a loco-centric hobby.

 

If certain versions of each release only came, or initially only came, with the coaches, that might work. Of course, there will always be some people who object, but the complaint that "you made me buy a set of the only coaches available that match my R24, you b*st*rd!" is probably one I could live with if I were Accurascale!

 

 

 

This is much too extensive and detailed a post to be contained in a digression where it both distracts from the subject of the  topic and is hidden from many of those who might be interested in responding. Some degree of self discipline is needed even on RMweb where "post first, think later"  seems to be the maxim. Start a topic.

[Edwardian]

25 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

This is much too extensive and detailed a post to be contained in a digression where it both distracts from the subject of the  topic and is hidden from many of those who might be interested in responding. Some degree of self discipline is needed even on RMweb where "post first, think later"  seems to be the maxim. Start a topic.

 

Respectfully, no.

 

The mods may well decide that, but I agree with the previous caller that a discussion of possible stock to go with this release is not irrelevant. Some potential customers are obviously willing to ponder the rolling stock options. This inevitably involves some thought as to the state of the market for such stock. The Dapol Mainline & City stock RMWeb topic, conversely, has featured much discussion of appropriate motive power. I do not recall anyone appointing themselves citizen militia to stamp that out.

 

So, maybe skip the posts that do not interest you, rather than be keen to police others who may be open to them, and, yes, "think first, post later" is generally good advice.

 

If the mods close this digression down, I will not be in sympathy with that desicion as I think that such 'digressions' are supportive of the release to which they relate, but that is a decision they can make.

 

You, on the other hand, well ...

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Edwardian

[Flying Pig]

5 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Respectfully, no.

 

Respectfully, off.

[Edwardian]

 

Now, perhaps we have gone off topic, so back to it.

 

For those interested in these surburban tanks and their services, I can highly reccommend Adrian Marks's excellent Basilica Fields to anyone who has not  yet had that pleasure: Link

 

Trigger warning, some of the pictures include carriages, and I particularly noted the one of the No. 248, running as a 2-4-0T, with a train of five six-wheel carriages on the 1.35pm Blackwall – Fenchurch Street service in 1913.

 

There is, then, the 'third way' of GER 6-wheel stock, which would also support the release of a T26/E4, if anyone was so minded, and can thus be used to represent both mainline and suburban services. 

 

Of course, it might be felt that the release of Hattons's generics in GE livery will dilute the demand, though, of course, GER carriage style is very different from that of the Hattons coaches. 

[BrakeCoach]

9 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Respectfully, off.

 

Respectfully, a buckjumper.

didn't know this was an actual word for something else, but at least I can hope this can cool the posts down.

[Pint of Adnams]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

The 4-wheelers seemed to dominate Chingford, Enfield, Palace Gates and North Woolwich at Grouping, the GER having never built enough bogie coaches to supplant them. As it's not really my period of interest, I do not know how long it took the cash-strapped LNER to replace them.

 

The alternative are GER bogie suburban coaches. Thus I suspect one might find pre-Grouping types lasting into BR, albeit at leaving pre-Great War modeller (in this case the pre-1911 modeller, and even then excluding anyone not depicting the Loughton line) in the lurch, as the need, actual or perceived, to accommodate the BR modeller so often does.   A suite of 54' bogie coaches seems a more ambitious and expensive proposition. 

 

But here we are with the weird way this works. I am delighted to see Dapol release GWR toplights, yet they have chosen the objectively least useful set they could. These sets are so late (1921) so as to be practically Grouping era coaches, and they were used only on certain very specific suburban services out of London.  There is relatively little GWR motive power suitable for them - really nothing for the earlier liveries of the release and it's not until the '30s that there is really a go-with engine. They don't even look similar to coaches used elsewhere on the GWR; you would be better getting Hattons Genesis coaches to pass as GWR coaches on local services outside the Smoke than running the Dapol toplights away from their defined territory. They are just really niche! In many ways they have much less utility than, say, a set of Holden and Hill 54' GER bogie suburbans.

 

Here, with so many versions of the GER/LNER J tanks announced, and with the Oxford Rail K85/N7 released, there is an abundance of motive power suited to GER suburban coaches. 

 

Objectively, I suspect a set of Holden 4-wheel six a sides or Holden and Hill 54' bogie suburbans would have been more widespread and have more utility on GER lines than Dapol's Mainline and City toplights did on GWR lines. Logically, therefore, they should be the better choice for the manufacturer.  Logic, though, seems to have little to do with what people will buy!

 

Hence my suggestion of train packs, of selling the carriages in a set with the locomotive. That might overcome inertia in people committing to the coaches in a loco-centric hobby.

 

If certain versions of each release only came, or initially only came, with the coaches, that might work. Of course, there will always be some people who object, but the complaint that "you made me buy a set of the only coaches available that match my R24, you b*st*rd!" is probably one I could live with if I were Accurascale!

 

 

The suburban stock used on the GER's inner suburban routes, excluding the recently-constructed 54' Ilford sets, was very rapidly replaced by the Gresley Quins, the first of the latter appearing early in 1925. At that time there were insufficient N7s for all of the scheduled workings, so this period offers a neat Buckjumper/N7 overlap with all of the pre-WW2 LNER locomotive and coaching stock livery variations in play to boot. The Quins remained in active service until full electrification late in 1960 - I remember them well.

 

If there were to be further GE locomotives, such as the T26/E4, complementing the Hornby J15, Claud and B12 (and B17), then examples of the GER 50' or 54' gangwayed stock built post-1900 and saw main line service to begin with and lasted through on secondary and branch line services until the end of steam in East Anglia. The Kitchen/Restaurant Cars lasted even longer.

 

I'm fairly sure that there are some thinking caps being worn at Accurascale, especially if noting the interest in and success of the Rapido W&U offerings as well as their own Buckjumpers.

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Pint of Adnams
To clarify that the Bucks were not Rapido's, much as they hoped they might be...

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, Pint of Adnams said:

 

The suburban stock used on the GER's inner suburban routes, excluding the recently-constructed 54' Ilford sets, was very rapidly replaced by the Gresley Quins, the first of the latter appearing early in 1925. At that time there were insufficient N7s for all of the scheduled workings, so this period offers a neat Buckjumper/N7 overlap with all of the pre-WW2 LNER locomotive and coaching stock livery variations in play to boot. The Quins remained in active service until full electrification late in 1960 - I remember them well.

 

If there were to be further GE locomotives, such as the T26/E4, complementing the Hornby J15, Claud and B12 (and B17), then examples of the GER 50' or 54' gangwayed stock built post-1900 and saw main line service to begin with and lasted through on secondary and branch line services until the end of steam in East Anglia. The Kitchen/Restaurant Cars lasted even longer.

 

I'm fairly sure that there are some thinking caps being worn at Accurascale, especially if noting the interest in and success of the Rapido W&U offerings as well as their Buckjumpers.

 

Interesting.

 

I think this is an example of a wider issue; locomotives often last longer in service than rolling stock. The need to stretch toward the Monoperiod remains, hence Rapido have done a bunch of pre-Grouping wagons, but it's all useless for the pre-Great War modeller, save the GW stuff, of which, half should arguably be red, not grey, so....  

 

So, where would you (buck)jump here? Conventional wisdom would seem to be in favour of the Quins you mention, leaving the pre-Grouping modeller a Cinderella without a carriage, a mere cabinet queen of a model.

 

But, then weird stuff happens, such as the Dapol Mainline & City stock, which no one should really have wanted, or needed, and yet...

 

I am a great believer in 'build it and they will come' where pre-Grouping is concerned, but that is easy to say when I am not shouldering the commercial risk!

 

I remain convinced that the way to sell carriages is with locomotives, and, while there are more pre-Grouping releases than ever before, there is still precious little 'joined-up thinking'. No doubt there are necessary commercial reasons for all this, but we get releases of locos for which there is no stock and stock for which there are no locos.  Take the excellent announcements by Accurascale of various NE hopper wagons.  These will no doubt be of great use to Grouping and BR modellers, but there are 3-4 sets in NER livery (which I have enthusiastically pre-ordered) yet to my knowledge no one has announced a six or eight copupled mineral engine in NER livery. So, if the NER versions do not sell so well as the later condition ones, will that be because significantly fewer people are potentially interested in them, or is it because they might quite like them, but reflect that they would have nothing to pull them? 

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

29 minutes ago, Pint of Adnams said:

 

The suburban stock used on the GER's inner suburban routes, excluding the recently-constructed 54' Ilford sets, was very rapidly replaced by the Gresley Quins, the first of the latter appearing early in 1925. At that time there were insufficient N7s for all of the scheduled workings, so this period offers a neat Buckjumper/N7 overlap with all of the pre-WW2 LNER locomotive and coaching stock livery variations in play to boot. The Quins remained in active service until full electrification late in 1960 - I remember them well.

 

If there were to be further GE locomotives, such as the T26/E4, complementing the Hornby J15, Claud and B12 (and B17), then examples of the GER 50' or 54' gangwayed stock built post-1900 and saw main line service to begin with and lasted through on secondary and branch line services until the end of steam in East Anglia. The Kitchen/Restaurant Cars lasted even longer.

 

I'm fairly sure that there are some thinking caps being worn at Accurascale, especially if noting the interest in and success of the Rapido W&U offerings as well as their own Buckjumpers.

 

 

Plus you've got the Hornby Gresleys and Thompsons, whilst Accurascale have already announced the Mark One Subs. That's before you even consider all the kits that are available.

 

Even in one of the publicity photos for the J67 - J69 the loco is next to two Class 30/31s.

 

https://www.accurascale.com/blogs/news/a-bevy-of-buckjumpers-holden-s-r24-and-s56-classes-lner-j67-j69-and-hill-c72-class-lner-j68

 

Plenty of rolling stock to go with these. Half the class weren't even on the GER post 1923 and most were shunters/goods engines. One of the models chosen is actually Scottish allocated!

 

Just seems that some seem to think they are special by deciding to model an era that nothing is available, yet don't seem to want to do any actual modelling. 

 

You want coaches? Maybe get in touch with Danny Pinnock, he does them.

 

 

Jason

Edited December 20, 2023 by Steamport Southport

[Edwardian]

Just now, Steamport Southport said:

 

Just seems that some seem to think they are special by deciding to model an era that nothing is available, yet don't seem to want to do any actual modelling. 

 

You want coaches? Maybe get in touch with Danny Pinnock, he does them.

 

 

Jason

 

A chestnut roasting on the open fire.

 

Oh course, I forgot, only 'modellers' of the Monoperiod are allowed to want things RTR. My mistake. 

[Pint of Adnams]

11 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Plus you've got the Hornby Gresleys and Thompsons, whilst Accurascale have already announced the Mark One Subs. That's before you even consider all the kits that are available.

 

Even in one of the publicity photos for the J67 - J69 the loco is next to two Class 30/31s.

 

https://www.accurascale.com/blogs/news/a-bevy-of-buckjumpers-holden-s-r24-and-s56-classes-lner-j67-j69-and-hill-c72-class-lner-j68

 

Plenty of rolling stock to go with these. Half the class weren't even on the GER post 1923 and most were shunters/goods engines. One of the models chosen is actually Scottish allocated!

 

Just seems that some seem to think they are special by deciding to model an era that nothing is available, yet don't seem to want to do any actual modelling. 

 

You want coaches? Maybe get in touch with Danny Pinnock, he does them.

 

 

Jason

 

Oh dear, touched that nerve again have we?

 

The Hornby non-vestibuled (non-gangwayed) Gresley and Thompson stock are out of production. Hornby has in its catalogue dozens of early-BR period locomotives but barely three crimson and cream coaches and two of those are SR.

 

It's a gross exaggeration to assert that half the class weren't even on the GER post-1923, and most of those that did wander returned relatively quickly, the remaining few were taken into military service in the 1940s. Good on Accurascale for catering for those that did wander afield though.

 

My friend Dan only maintains stock of his 7mm kits, and they are limited these days. His 4mm range is subject to very restricted production so no proper choice there, an individual might be lucky to drop on one but not in volume. He's no spring chicken, has increasing family commitments, and I do wonder what will happen to his etches and masters in due time. By 'all the kits' I guess that you can only imply the Everleigh productions, or are anticipating the gradual reintroduction of Ian Kirk's former kits?