Dapol announce a 28xx in OO

[County of Yorkshire]

Totally bizarre choice really, when the current Hornby model was first released in what… 2008 or so? If you got all OO gauge GWR modellers in a room and asked them to list models in need of a retool, I don’t even think this would come in the top 10? I’d say the King, 57xx pannier, Collett Goods, Saint, County, 42/52/72xx heavy tanks need more of a retool more than the the 28xx.
 

I’ve about half a dozen of the Hornby model and so this announcement doesn’t interest me at all. 

 

I agree with others, a Saint or County would certainly open my wallet! 

Edited May 12, 2023 by County of Yorkshire

[melmerby]

49 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

The Saint leads you into the Star

The Saint and Star are two versions of basically the same loco

The boiler, wheels, cab etc are the same.

One is 2 cylinder with inside Stephenson's gear, the other 4 cylinder with Inside Walschaerts gear

Both had 4-4-2 versions

 

Hornby made a half decent Star, so should be able to produce a Saint from it fairly easily

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

went to Aberdare once: The shops were shut, and it was raining...

I have to say that does sound very typical of Aberdare…

[melmerby]

6 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Not my area of interest. I imagine the Hornby model will join the Railroad range—assuming they can produce it for less than the cost of the Dapol one.

Didn't they already have a sort of 'Railroad' version?

The previous tender drive variant dating from 1991, although it hasn't seen light of day recently, (since the 2009-11 version?)

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by melmerby

[Dunsignalling]

10 hours ago, Harlequin said:

This is wonderful news. These giant mute workhorses slogged around the GWR system doing a lot of hard work without getting the attention of the big passenger classes. I love 'em for that.

 

I wonder if the new Hornby management will consider the 28XX to be one of "their" models and behave like they have for other competing models in recent years? Hopefully they will take a more enlightened approach this time.

I suspect Hornby may have their hands too full with their latest  pet project to indulge in such petulance these days.... 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Butler Henderson]

More pertinent will Dapol get the shade of green right for once

[asmay2002]

10 hours ago, MonsalDale said:

A lined green version?! Interesting indeed.

That would be pre first world war.

[toby_tl10]

6 hours ago, County of Yorkshire said:

Totally bizarre choice really, when the current Hornby model was first released in what… 2008 or so? If you got all OO gauge GWR modellers in a room and asked them to list models in need of a retool, I don’t even think this would come in the top 10? I’d say the King, 57xx pannier, Collett Goods, Saint, County, 42/52/72xx heavy tanks need more of a retool more than the the 28xx.

Year of tooling (info from Hattons)

28XX - 2010

42/52/72XX - 2013

King - 2016

 

Not a GWR expert, but I'm curious why you prioritise retooling two 2013 and 2016 models over a 2010 model. Are you somewhat contradicting yourself, or are the King and 2-8-0Ts really that bad?

[Neal Ball]

4 hours ago, toby_tl10 said:

Year of tooling (info from Hattons)

28XX - 2010

42/52/72XX - 2013

King - 2016

 

Not a GWR expert, but I'm curious why you prioritise retooling two 2013 and 2016 models over a 2010 model. Are you somewhat contradicting yourself, or are the King and 2-8-0Ts really that bad?

 

The King is often stated as in need of an uplift, although I am very happy with mine.

 

The 42xx etc. tanks are a different matter and were brought to market at the "design clever" stage at Hornby. They aren't in dire need of replacement, but if they were, then a lot of people would be very happy! My 72xx is very nice, although the motor is a little noisy and I suspect for most people, the perfect loco would see a new motor for starters.

 

However, for my two penny worth, whilst its great to see Dapol catering for us GWR modellers, I would rather have seen a new Pannier tank 0-6-0PT of which there are numerous (slightly) different styles over the years that could provide a good degree of variety. (Saddle tanks; Pannier tanks; Open / closed cabs; top-feed etc.)

 

The current Bachmann offerings are dated tooling and do not cater correctly for pre-WW2 modellers. Top-feed started to be fitted onto these locos from around 1942.

 

Overall of course it is great that Dapol are considering more GWR stock.

[Dunsignalling]

4 hours ago, toby_tl10 said:

Year of tooling (info from Hattons)

28XX - 2010

42/52/72XX - 2013

King - 2016

 

Not a GWR expert, but I'm curious why you prioritise retooling two 2013 and 2016 models over a 2010 model. Are you somewhat contradicting yourself, or are the King and 2-8-0Ts really that bad?

Not my core interest, but I don't recall any of the iterations of Hornby's King receiving a rapturous reception from the GWR cognoscenti.

 

I've never been entirely sure if the models are really not good enough or the target audience is especially picky.

 

John

 

 

[Harlequin]

Dapol will have considered multiple factors in deciding to model this class, factors that we are not party to and have no idea of their relative importance.

 

In their current production cycle and with the knowledge, experience and parts built up from the Manors, Moguls and Prairies, the 28xx may well be "low hanging fruit" for them.

 

It's a bit sad that with every new model announcement there are cries of, "Why didn't you do this, though?", ranging from tiny detail changes all the way up to requests for completely different models in different scales.

 

Dapol have made their choice and the model will probably be very good and sell very well. Let's be happy for the people who will enjoy this model.

 

And this announcement doesn't mean that they, or someone else, aren't also thinking about the other classes mentioned above, of course... It's just one point in a continuum of model releases.

 

Edited May 13, 2023 by Harlequin

[Hilux5972]

24 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Not my core interest, but I don't recall any of the iterations of Hornby's King receiving a rapturous reception from the GWR cognoscenti.

I would say that’s most likely because their latest King quashed the Hattons King that was planned. Whether or not DJM would have seen it through to completion is another matter but people were quite miffed at the time that Hornby beat out the competition so to speak. Personally I don’t see anything wrong with the new King model, apart from the green paint of course,  but others may differ.  

[JSpencer]

1 hour ago, Hilux5972 said:

I would say that’s most likely because their latest King quashed the Hattons King that was planned. Whether or not DJM would have seen it through to completion is another matter but people were quite miffed at the time that Hornby beat out the competition so to speak. Personally I don’t see anything wrong with the new King model, apart from the green paint of course,  but others may differ.  

 

With hindsight, most people were probably glad Hornby did. The early cads of the DJM one show a tiny can motor about 1/4 of the size of what Hornby used. People talk about the gearing and conrods fighting each other on DJM motors but - in reality - the motors were too small. The gear would bite into the worm when the loco came a descent and get stuck (see some tests one person did stripping the thing apart in the Hattons 14XX thread). Causing a jerky motion.

 

Then the balance of models where never centred over the drivers (J94, rear drivers, Class 71, back of the bogies, 14xx between rear drivers and pony....). The Well tank and O2 worked well as they were centred correctly.

 

A King without guts.

 

This lead to Hornby rushing theirs a bit, many entered the bargain bins as most customers waited for the DJM one to appear before deciding which to buy.

 

A new 72xx would be grand. I see Dapol are starting with the 28XX only and not the later 1938 variants.

[County of Yorkshire]

6 hours ago, toby_tl10 said:

Year of tooling (info from Hattons)

28XX - 2010

42/52/72XX - 2013

King - 2016

 

Not a GWR expert, but I'm curious why you prioritise retooling two 2013 and 2016 models over a 2010 model. Are you somewhat contradicting yourself, or are the King and 2-8-0Ts really that bad?

The 28xx was released in a golden age for Hornby, when they were at the peak of their powers. I think it’s an excellent model, and aside from working inside valve gear, I’m not sure how it could be meaningfully improved.  Firebox glow is a gimmick and hardly worth paying for. 
 

The heavy tanks were released during the ‘design clever’ period which means they have a raft of poor design compromises. Moulded smokebox door dart, moulded handrails (resembling shelves!), low weight, underpowered motors, insipid green paint jobs etc. 

 

The Hornby King is also not a top-drawer model. The announced but not released Hattons King appeared to have twice the spec of the Hornby offering but was obviously canned. 

[57xx]

2 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

The 42xx etc. tanks are a different matter and were brought to market at the "design clever" stage at Hornby. They aren't in dire need of replacement, but if they were, then a lot of people would be very happy! My 72xx is very nice, although the motor is a little noisy and I suspect for most people, the perfect loco would see a new motor for starters.

 

This did go through some iterations. I bought a cheap BR black one with the intention of fitting the Brassmaster detailing kit and respraying. On inspection, I found a lot of the features that the Brassmasters kit was supposed to fix were already on the loco.

[gwrrob]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I've never been entirely sure if the models are really not good enough or the target audience is especially picky.

 

I'd rather be called discerning John @Dunsignalling 😉

[Roy Langridge]

7 minutes ago, County of Yorkshire said:

Firebox glow is a gimmick and hardly worth paying for. 

Firebox glow is a gimmick as it is not done realistically. Firehole doors should be shut when a loco is working hard, only being opened when coaling. When a loco is stationery and you need to cool it, they may be left open, similarly if the loco is rolling down hill and you want to cool it.
 

Even on DCC Sound we tend to not see firebox glow/shovelling synchronised. 
 

Roy

[toby_tl10]

44 minutes ago, County of Yorkshire said:

The 28xx was released in a golden age for Hornby, when they were at the peak of their powers. I think it’s an excellent model, and aside from working inside valve gear, I’m not sure how it could be meaningfully improved.  Firebox glow is a gimmick and hardly worth paying for. 

The visible chassis block? Assuming Dapol will correct it.

[toby_tl10]

1 hour ago, JSpencer said:

A new 72xx would be grand. I see Dapol are starting with the 28XX only and not the later 1938 variants.

4S-009-001          OO Gauge 28xx / 2884 2831 Lined Great Western Green

4S-009-002          OO Gauge 28xx / 2884 2804 Great Western Green

4S-009-003          OO Gauge 28xx / 2884 2854 Great Western Green

4S-009-004          OO Gauge 28xx / 2884 2884 Shirt Button Green

4S-009-005          OO Gauge 28xx / 2884 3819 GWR Green

4S-009-006          OO Gauge 28xx / 2884 3802 BR Early Emblem Black

4S-009-007          OO Gauge 28xx / 2884  2851 BR Late Crest Black

4S-009-008          OO Gauge 28xx / 2884 2874 Great Western Green

 

These three appear to be from the Collett 1938 variants?

[The Stationmaster]

Hmm  didn't see that one coming although it is a rather obvious one when they've already gota tender for it.  If it was an Aberdare I'd be polishing my bank card even though they are a tad out of period for me but i'd love one.  However they'd be a s*d to research whereas the 28 familty is sitting around ready to be measured and scanned and phot'd.  But for me they havea reasonably good Hornby one to beat although it's not to the latest detail standards.

 

I also wonder if teh 28 is the best commercial choice with the competition lurking there with quitea godo model but I suspect one which hasn't sold in huge multiples of thousands.  you perhaps say the same about the commercial prospects of an Aberdare but they would be b very different (and it was an excellen t sged - which I did with a permnit so there!

 

Personally I'm glad that Dapol have gone for this one rather than certain other bits of Great Westernry thereby leaving a clear field for others to do a cracking job with various other much desired engines (if only we can persuade them to pick up the baton and run with it).

[Steamport Southport]

Also worth bearing in mind that most of North Wales was actually LMS and even the LNER had it's inroads rather than GWR. I have seen it suggested that Mainline did the J72 due to Merl Evans remembering them at Wrexham. I don't think it was coincidence that Mainline had a very Welsh leaning.

 

Speaking of Wales will 3802 have the correct tender for preservation days? It tends to run with a 4000 gallon Collett tender.

 

 

 

Jason

[AY Mod]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

But for me they havea reasonably good Hornby one to beat although it's not to the latest detail standards.

 

Based upon the Prairie and Manor I feel this 28xx will have much more advanced features, better decoration and greater performance, irrespective of detail demands, so that when someone next wants to buy a 28xx they will have a simple choice. Unless they want to match the incorrect shades of their earlier stable.

 

I find it a difficult one to anticipate the market demand for though.

[tomparryharry]

On 12/05/2023 at 14:45, D9020 Nimbus said:

I'd rather they'd used some of the resources to get the N gauge Light Pacific issued. We've only been waiting since 2012…

 

An interesting question. However....

 

How do you know the the profits generated by the 28xx won't go towards the Light Pacific? From a business perspective, Dapol would go after the Western stuff, because that's where the profits are, at the moment. I wouldn't think that it's an era or regional bias, but business is business. 

[BVMR21]

I think there will be profit in other regions, however, the 00 market has seen a number of larger passenger designs over the last 6 years so it is surely a good thing that we have one of the goods workhorses coming to our layouts again as a new tooling, and then there's also the point about the green being the correct shade. I think Dapol should be on to a winner with this model, and whilst layouts may be getting smaller I honestly cannot see why one cannot make an appearance as a visiting engine or something on many layouts.

 

Going by the Mogul (which is the only Dapol steamer I have) this should be a good one to see released, though at a rough guess these will probably arrive Q1 2025 rather than in late 2024 as announced so all the more time to save for these models. Only issue I had with the Mogul was that there wasn't a lot of torque though I am not certain as to whether or not this issue has been addressed by Dapol or not, though it does not impede the models with 3 to 4 coaches normally when going round a curved gradient so should be fine.

[The Johnster]

OT a little, but as a DC customer I see no need for improvement of the very good Bachmann 57xx/8750, though topfeedless options would be nice.  Nobody is crying out for retooled 56xx, so why the frequent requests for the panniers; I’m very happy with mine! 
 

If a proposed new 57xx/8750 had significant improvements, lets say full compensation or working full inside motion, I’d understand, but this would lead to howls of protest from those who already think models are too delicate and gimmicky and want more robust locos at lower prices.  
 

I have a Hornby 42xx, the second version of this mech, which is pretty good, and plods along very much like a real 42xx.  Again, a new tooling would have to be a significant improvement over something that is already very good save for minor fixable QC issues (buffers falling off, coupling loose in box). 
 

Retoolings are not always improvements, much as the marketing people want us to believe this, they can just as easily be to improve production flow and bring costs down.