RMweb Gold Metr0Land Posted March 13, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 13, 2012 I can hear howls of delight from some of the lads north of Watford with the announcement today - a loco much requested I believe. However, what's puzzling me as a southerner who models home counties is what else the chassis might be used for? Since this isn't a commission for a shop that's sharing financial risk, I'm assuming Bachmann will want their money's worth by getting as much sales as possible from the chassis over the coming years. Given that 2-4-2 is pretty unusual (unique?) in RTR terms, what else might they use the same chassis for? (Not intended to be a speculation thread, just an enquiry!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Given that Bachmann have said in the past that tooling for the chassis and mechanism is a relatively small cost element of the development of a new model, I would imagine that isn't the greatest concern. That said, a well thought out and proven layout that can be quickly rejigged to other dimensions in CAD is a good thing to have 'in the bank'. The other great locus of 2-4-2T types in BR days was of course the Great Eastern section. But why stop there? If compact enough 4-4-2, 4-4-0, 2-4-0, 0-4-2 and 0-4-4 tank engine types might all be accessible from the one basic layout, suitably dimensioned, and with the right carrying wheel arrangements hung on it. (This sort of thing is pretty clear in the 0-6-0Ts, the general layout of the chassis in the 3FT and Pannier is common; I expect the same will be true of the J11 chassis when compared to the 3F chassis.) For my money, this is a 'test case' loco. Here's a 'character item' which immediately says 'industrial North West England'. In steam operation these were everywhere until displaced by DMU's. Clearly there has been demand for similar character items down South such as the M7 and Beattie WT. Will there prove to be a similar demand North of Manchester? I laughed a little unsympathetically at the Southern enthusiast who felt left out. This will be the first ever RTR main line model for the Lancashire and Yorkshire, which has previously only enjoyed the Aspinall 0-4-0ST. When you look around and realise that the same is true for the LNWR (no RTR whatsoever) NER (only ever had the J72) CR (terrible model of a single) G&SWR (0) NBR (poor model of a J83) HR (0) it is clear that there is some imbalance in RTR provision. So here's the test: is there money enough to buy the models to begin righting this imbalance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 LNWR - is not the Super D suitable? Or was it modified after grouping? EDIT: And I'd like to think the chassis could be suitable for an F or E something in terms of ex-LNER engines, but possibly not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 The Super D while clearly from the LNWR design family was a production of the LMS. You could argue that the tender is pure LNWR. The smaller locos, 0-6-0 and 0-6-2T, remained in traffic to the end of steam like most small types. But such has been the malign 'fluence of Derby awfulness, that they have been forgotten. Yet if running a Duchess, Princess or Scot up the Southern half of the WCML in model form, it is old LNWR types you need as backdrop... We need some kind L&Y enthusiast to impart the wheelbase dimensions of the Lanky-Tanky, in order to judge what alternative bodies it might run around underneath. I am sure I can mangle it into some sort of awful Stratford gobbler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 13, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 13, 2012 As far as the Aspinall 2-4-2T is concerned the best I can do from a quick browse in the L&Y section of my library is a coupled wheelbase of 8ft 7ins and an overall wheelbase of 24ft 4ins, no detail for the distance between the carrying wheels and drivers I'm afraid. 39ft 2,25ins over buffers. Addenda Delving a bit further into that part of my library has revealed a wheelbase of - 7ft 10.5ins + 8ft 7in + 7ft 10.5ins = total wheelbase 24ft 4ins Carrying wheels: 3ft 7 & 5/8ths ins Driving Wheels : 5ft 8ins Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Ian Beattie's drawing of a "Lanky Tank" (long-bunker version) in the January 1984 "Railway Modeller" gives the same dimensions as do SM's sources - except for the carrying wheels at 3' 7¾" (!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Thanks for that. Slightly longer than the 23ft wheelbase of the ex GER F4/5/6 (5'4" wheel) series, but near enough to tempt me. Even closer to the chassis dimensions of the ex-GCR F2 ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 13, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 13, 2012 Ian Beattie's drawing of a "Lanky Tank" (long-bunker version) in the January 1984 "Railway Modeller" gives the same dimensions as do SM's sources - except for the carrying wheels at 3' 7¾" (!) Maybe he couldn't read the L&Y diagram which was shown in Nock's book (the second source I went to) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Maybe he couldn't read the L&Y diagram which was shown in Nock's book (the second source I went to) No need for headscratching, Mike - I was being flippant in mentioning the 1/8" discrepancy. In one of H.C. Casserley's books he gives the driving wheel diameter as 5' 8", in another as 5' 7 â…ž" ! I do know that the wheel sizes varied in service and that 1/8" in 4 mm scale is about 0.04 mm, so I shouldn't think the OP is going to be too fussy... Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 13, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 13, 2012 No need for headscratching, Mike - I was being flippant in mentioning the 1/8" discrepancy. In one of H.C. Casserley's books he gives the driving wheel diameter as 5' 8", in another as 5' 7 â…ž" ! I do know that the wheel sizes varied in service and that 1/8" in 4 mm scale is about 0.04 mm, so I shouldn't think the OP is going to be too fussy... Gordon This sort of thing always amuses me as it probably depends on when the wheels were measured and what the scrapping size of the tyres was - different answers so first find the question (And of course we're always assuming that the original source information was correct and that the draughtsman didn't write it on the drawing first thing of a Monday morning or late on Saturday morning when the afternoon beckoned. Still it's all good fun and the encouraging thing is that the info is out there if we look in the right places. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Near enough for a LNER F8 too 4mm out on wheelbase wheels near enough too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Given that Bachmann have said in the past that tooling for the chassis and mechanism is a relatively small cost element of the development of a new model, I would imagine that isn't the greatest concern. That said, a well thought out and proven layout that can be quickly rejigged to other dimensions in CAD is a good thing to have 'in the bank'. The other great locus of 2-4-2T types in BR days was of course the Great Eastern section. But why stop there? If compact enough 4-4-2, 4-4-0, 2-4-0, 0-4-2 and 0-4-4 tank engine types might all be accessible from the one basic layout, suitably dimensioned, and with the right carrying wheel arrangements hung on it. (This sort of thing is pretty clear in the 0-6-0Ts, the general layout of the chassis in the 3FT and Pannier is common; I expect the same will be true of the J11 chassis when compared to the 3F chassis.) For my money, this is a 'test case' loco. Here's a 'character item' which immediately says 'industrial North West England'. In steam operation these were everywhere until displaced by DMU's. Clearly there has been demand for similar character items down South such as the M7 and Beattie WT. Will there prove to be a similar demand North of Manchester? I laughed a little unsympathetically at the Southern enthusiast who felt left out. This will be the first ever RTR main line model for the Lancashire and Yorkshire, which has previously only enjoyed the Aspinall 0-4-0ST. When you look around and realise that the same is true for the LNWR (no RTR whatsoever) NER (only ever had the J72) CR (terrible model of a single) G&SWR (0) NBR (poor model of a J83) HR (0) it is clear that there is some imbalance in RTR provision. So here's the test: is there money enough to buy the models to begin righting this imbalance? Thanks. But you aren't comparing like with like. I was referring to 'The Southern', one of the Big 4: that shouldn't be compared to a number of pre-Grouping railways but to the LNER, LMS and Great(er) Western. There are no r-t-r models of LBSCR engines anywhere, 4 LSWR ones and just one SECR one to come, and that's all manufacturers. But your 'test' is a good one: it needs to be applied to all current and future new models and I'm sure that's what the manufacturers do. JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Rabbit Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Driving wheels a bit big but a GWR 3600 Class 'Birdcage'? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I can hear howls of delight from some of the lads north of Watford with the announcement today - a loco much requested I believe. However, what's puzzling me as a southerner who models home counties is what else the chassis might be used for? Since this isn't a commission for a shop that's sharing financial risk, I'm assuming Bachmann will want their money's worth by getting as much sales as possible from the chassis over the coming years. Given that 2-4-2 is pretty unusual (unique?) in RTR terms, what else might they use the same chassis for? (Not intended to be a speculation thread, just an enquiry!) I do wonder about this 'reuse of a chassis under another model' line of thought, which seems to be conventional wisdom. Perhaps it results from the great days of Tri-ang, which used an identical chassis for a Jinty, a Diesel Shunter and a number of others. As far as I can see, the manufacturers seldom use the same chassis under more than one model these days, tending to design bespoke chassis for nearly all models. (Notable exceptions are the Hornby 'Clans' and 'Britannias', the Bulleid Pacifics, both pairs whose prototypes shared almost-the-same chassis anyway, the LMS Scots, Patriots and Jubilees and the various Hornby Railroad range 4-4-0s - and that's about all I can think of off the top of my head). Everyone expects the new Bachmann 4F to share a chassis with the 3F but, since I've seen comments saying they weren't identical on the prototypes, I won't be surprised if the 4F has a bespoke chassis, although that might be a revision to the CAD drawings to achieve it. And, as has been pointed out above, chassis design is the cheaper part of model design anyway, so they seem to adopt the philosophy of 'you may as well do it right' (other than the recent trend to do a nice new chassis and put it under an old 'top'!). JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Whilst that maybe true, having a chassis that is (potentially) 1mm out and merely needs a change in the wheel diameter you can see why people are starting to get a little excited. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.