Southern - the neglected railway

[Tim Hale]

In response to comments that the 'Southern was miles ahead' in terms of available 4mm RTR, I decided to test the veracity of this comment by listing the currently* available models from Hornby, Bachmann, Kernow and OO Works.

 

If your chosen railway is the Southern, it does not make happy reading: Southern Blog

 

If I have forgotten anything then all mistakes are mine, feel free to quibble.

 

The LMS offer more express 4mm models than all the combined total of Southern models.

 

Tim

 

 

*I ignored old Tri-ang era items such as L1's, the E2 and S-class and no kits were considered.

[Guest Belgian]

Hear, hear Tim! It needed saying and publicising. We've said it many times, but always been put down, particularly by the LNER boys, who, unsurprisingly, have twice as many locomotive models as us . . .

 

JE

[DLT]

Quite so Tim.

I think the apparent situation has come about due to the increase in Southern locos over the last few years, which of course started from a position of virtually nothing!

Cheers, Dave.

[Bon Accord]

*I ignored old Tri-ang era items such as L1's, the E2 and S-class and no kits were considered.

 

But you did include Triang era items like the J83, B12 and Dean Single?

Additionally, you've only listed the WC/BB in the Southern section once, yet in other Big Four sections you've listed original and rebuilt locos as separate items, which in your 'count' have contributed more locos to that companys individual score (e.g. Duchess/Coronation, Royal Scot original/rebuilt, Patriot original/rebuilt etc.) Isn't that somewhat disingenuous?

 

P.S. You've missed out the Merchant Navy from the Southern listing.

 

P.S.P.S. Under forthcoming models, you could also add the Model Rail 'USA' tank.

[Brake Compo]

One of the worst statistics is that there is only one decent mainstream model of an SR tank loco - the Hornby M7 - the A1X is a terrible model of an IoW engine and lovely though the 0298 is, it is a highly priced niche model outside the mainstream. Given how many classes of tanks there were on the Southern and how much these were a part of the scene it is terrible hole.

 

Likelwise confining the analysis to those manufacturers using red and blue boxes, i.e. those that can be found in an average model shop, is even more revealing.

 

Like others I get very tired of hearing the that the Southern has been well catered for in recent years - it hasn't, all that is happened is that a little of the previous total neglect has been slightly redressed. One also has to question the intelligence of the production programmes of the two majors, given that this is the railway that served the most populous part of the nation, and in which there is a huge interest. I would suggest that any model of a Southern tank would have sold better than things like the V3 or L1, or the very strange decision to develop and introduce the GW eight coupled tanks. Even when the majors have decided to venture into the untapped and supressed market for SR emus, the selection of models baffles me.

[Tim Hale]

Hi

But you did include Triang era items like the J83, B12 and Dean Single?

Additionally, you've only listed the WC/BB in the Southern section once, yet in other Big Four sections you've listed original and rebuilt locos as separate items, which in your 'count' have contributed more locos to that companys individual score (e.g. Duchess/Coronation, Royal Scot original/rebuilt, Patriot original/rebuilt etc.) Isn't that somewhat disingenuous?

 

P.S. You've missed out the Merchant Navy from the Southern listing.

 

P.S.P.S. Under forthcoming models, you could also add the Model Rail 'USA' tank.

 

Hi,

 

Read the parameters for the list - it includes currently available and new old stock. The J83, B12 and Dean single are either currently listed or still on shelves.

 

WC/BB refer to the original form not the rebuilds whereas all the other companies rebuilds occurred prior to 1948. Therefore no rebuilt Merchant Navy and not disingenuous.

 

I also missed the GWR railcars (both types) and LNER sentinel.

 

Nice to see someone quibbling whilst forgetting that the overall picture is one of chronic neglect of Southern outline.

 

Tim

[Tim Hale]

Even when the majors have decided to venture into the untapped and supressed market for SR emus, the selection of models baffles me.

It may be pure speculation but is the choice of models more to do with the personalities involved rathjer than sound commercial judgement? What other reason can be suggested for Bachmann's neglect of Southern steam outline - N class, Nelson and forthcoming C class?

 

Having made that assumption, what locomotives would appear on the SR wishlist once the S15* and 700* are satisfied? The problem is shared with LNER followers who seem unable to agree which 0-6-0 should be chosen, for example should the choice be based on numbers or location or perhaps 'personality/fame' The H-class came closer to the M7 in numbers (66 and 105 respectively) but not in distribution however Bachmann might follow-up their 4F with a Q due to commonality of components and its Blubell/NRM connection, likewise the progress of the Bluebell's H2 might prompt Bachmann to release this and the LNER Atlantic?

 

Enough of the navel-gazing, the purpose of the list was to show that the Southern is still behind the curve and this has been accomplished.

 

Tim

 

*Often at the top of the SR wish-lists and easy wins for Hornby as the tenders are available.

[Bon Accord]

Hi,

Read the parameters for the list - it includes currently available and new old stock. The J83, B12 and Dean single are either currently listed or still on shelves.

 

They may be currently listed, but they're as much of a "scale model" as the old E2, or L1, i.e. they aren't really.

 

WC/BB refer to the original form not the rebuilds whereas all the other companies rebuilds occurred prior to 1948. Therefore no rebuilt Merchant Navy and not disingenuous.

 

Then perhaps you should redefine the criteria by stating that this list only applies if you want to model the Southern Railway and it's constituents upto 1948. The outlook for Southern Region modellers is a little healthier.

 

Nice to see someone quibbling whilst forgetting that the overall picture is one of chronic neglect of Southern outline.

 

Tim

 

As mentioned on another thread - try being a Scottish modeller! The notion of "well you're covered by the LMS/LNER" is much like me saying that the SR is somehow covered by generic BR standard models.

[Tim Hale]

Hi Bon Accord,

 

The criteria is clearly stated at the start of the blog, it was an LNER follower who complained about the AVAILABILTY of LNER vs SR therefore I simply used his parameters to create the list.

 

If you wish to promote your cause and produce a similar list to highlight the plight of Scottish models, then do so, rather than criticise the efforts of others.

 

It seems strange that you seem to be fixated by the perceived inequality between the least represented member of the big four, shouldn't you be moaning about the huge lead of the LMS but is your comment more to do with personality rather than veracity?

 

Tim

[Bon Accord]

Hi Bon Accord,

 

The criteria is clearly stated at the start of the blog, it was an LNER follower who complained about the AVAILABILTY of LNER vs SR therefore I simply used his parameters to create the list.

 

If you wish to promote your cause and produce a similar list to highlight the plight of Scottish models, then do so, rather than criticise the efforts of others.

 

It seems strange that you seem to be fixated by the perceived inequality between the least represented member of the big four, shouldn't you be moaning about the huge lead of the LMS but is your comment more to do with personality rather than veracity?

 

Tim

 

By posting a topic with what could be seen as a loaded title, would you not expect a question or two about it? If you didn't want a discussion or wanted this thread to be a "concurring replies only thread" (of which we seem to have a few on RMweb) you should have made that clear at the start.

My comments were based on what I perceived to be a somewhat one sided attempt to reinforce 'victim' status via debatable criteria and with the inclusion of some very dated 'toys' (not models) as evidence - I would suggest that compared to 10 years ago the availability and detailed quality of Southern models has improved greatly, so much so that the majority on your list could be said to be upto modern standards.

The Southern was the smallest of the Big Four in real life and the most restricted geographically, so is it really surprising that this numerical inferiority is reflected in the modelling world? I don't moan about the LMS or GWR, to my mind they perhaps deserve their numerical superiority given the scale of both their operating area and loco classes used.

[Tim Hale]

As this thread has descended into the usual whining, I think that I will merely let the list do the talking.

 

There is no need to prove 'victim' status as the list does that rather well.

 

And before an accusation is made of anti-LNER bias, it should be remembered that it was the comment of an LNER follower that prompted this list, this is merely a rebuttal to his comment.

 

Tim

[Guest Belgian]

As Tim says, here we go again, with LNER and Scottish modellers still not getting it but quibbling* about details and attacking the Southerners. (That seems to be . . . no, I won't get into all that).

 

Whether or not some of the models are up to current standards is irrelevant to the main thrust, that the Southern is woefully neglected and that there are big prototypes still to be covered. As to the suggestion that BR(SR) is much better represented, that simply applies to the two Rebuilt Bulleid Pacific models.

 

The LNER does pretty well for itself, being virtually on a par with the GWR in terms of locomotives, only the LMS having many more. From the Scottish point of view both LNER and LMS models are relevant to the Scottish lines in Grouping and BR days: I've said it before, if you go back to pre-grouping days, almost every railway is poorly represented by models, except the GWR, which is in that position simply because its Grouping years locomotives were basically Churchward designs from the turn of the century. (Ducks, and goes to hide - I don't want a war with the GWR boys as well. In fact, they have always been pretty good in their enthusiastic reception of their modelling coverage, yet have virtually the same number of models as the LNER ones who seem to be so 'neglected').

 

The reality is that the manufacturers will make models of prototypes that they think will sell: in recent times the LNER people have indicated that they will buy, so they are getting the models. Southern modellers are now repeating what the LNER boys did and pointing out the wide-open holes in the ranges that they would like to have filled - why can't the LNER people let us do that in peace?

 

JE

 

* Admittedly, Tim gave free reign to quibbling, but I can't say I expected it to be taken up so enthusiastically!

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Tim,

 

Never mind the carping. It inspired me to read your blog, and very enjoyable it is too. That's several hours of work time that I've used for more pleasurable matters, thanks!

 

regards,

 

DrGF

[Tim Hale]

Dear Doctor,

 

The blog is intended to entertain, share and promote the Southern.

 

Belgian is correct is his comment that Southern enthusiasts merely seek the same consideration from the main manufacturers without attracting comment from others.

 

Tim

[S.A.C Martin]

It's funny how Bon Accord, who is merely pointing out flaws in the argument, is somehow "attacking" the Southern, when this thread is literally one man's action against me, personally.

 

Sorry Tim but the way you've presented your thread and "argument" and particularly the rather not-so-subtle digs at me don't really wash. You were unable to overcome the fact that you had little in the way of evidence the first time you provided this argument and I feel you're simply trying to stir the proverbial pot again with this thread.

[Oldddudders]

I must admit to having a blind spot on these comparisons. I mean, whether you model BR, one of the Big Four, or the little-known Chorlton-c-u-m-Hardy Central (yes, yes - of course I've made that one up!) surely all that matters - if your are an RTR person - is what is available to you? Thus I don't wince when Andy Y posts a daring advance notice of some stunning new announcement from another part of the railway - indeed I rejoice that good RTR modelling is progressing, irrespective of prototype, and the trade continues to invest in our hobby, generating more sales, more interest and prolonging its health.

 

In short, partisan I ain't. I must be really sad.

[cary hill]

"whilst Hornby and Bachmann continue to ignore the most affluent fan base of railways."

 

What does that mean exactly?

[The Lurker]

presumably that the most affluent part of the UK is in the south east - where a higher proportion of the modelling population can be expected to be interested in their local railway? Possibly true although all the big 4 were "london-centric".

 

one way to look at whether the southern is unrepresented compared to others would be to look at the proportion of prototypes covered by rtr models for each of the "big 4". Anyone done that piece of work?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...but always been put down, particularly by the LNER boys, who, unsurprisingly, have twice as many locomotive models as us . . .

Exactly, we want parity. The LNER had over three times as many steam locos as the Southern and roughly double the number of classes. Do I have to put a 'winky' after that?

 

Slice and dice the numbers any way you like, RTR steam loco provision is problematic because of the sheer diversity: 500 different classes still running in 1948 despite all of the big four bringing their inherited variety down over their 25 years. Even the two companies that were able to standardise to some effect still possessed huge variety: the GWR was - as is well known - the focus among manufacturers because of some adroit selling of the concept that it was more readily modelled realistically from the relatively small set of the numerous loco classes. And that then took care of interest in the South.

 

Heading North, look how long it was before such basic grouping staples as the Black 5 and B1 got models? Even now there is not one single RTR LNWR model. Nothing to set alongside the pregroup origin RTR models of the A1X, M7, N, N15, T9, Beattie WT and announced C and O2; and that is a fair comparison as the LNWR was as large as the sum of the SR groups...

[Guest Belgian]

Exactly, we want parity. The LNER had over three times as many steam locos as the Southern and roughly double the number of classes. Do I have to put a 'winky' after that?

 

Even now there is not one single RTR LNWR model. Nothing to set alongside the pregroup origin RTR models of the A1X, M7, N, N15, T9, Beattie WT and announced O2; and that is a fair comparison as the LNWR was as large as the sum of the SR groups...

Yes to the first and I would agree with you if I was to ignore the 'Super D' . .

 

JE

[caradoc]

I agree with The Lurker: Would a more valid comparison not be the percentage of loco types produced for each of the Big Four; In other words, if the LMS had, say, 40 main types of steam loco, of which 20 were available in RTR, and the Southern had 20 main types, of which 10 were available, that's 50% for each ?

 

As Bon Accord has said, the SR was (by far) the smallest of the Big Four, so is it really surprising there is less available ?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

But the super D is an LMS design: carries forward design elements from LNWR predecessor classes and very welcome for that, but in no way an LNWR class.

 

The point I was trying to make is that diversity in the loco fleet makes provision very problematic and the Southern is far from being sole victim of very patchy and uneven coverage with two of the largest and notable companies - the NER with just a dated model of the J72 - clearly ignored. The good news is that at last we are seeing the RTR production of the very attractive smaller classes needed to flesh out the steam scene. what gets produced will be whatever proves to bring in a retail return. In that respect, my guess is that the Southern interest will be progressively better served by the end of the decade. Money talks...

[Joseph_Pestell]

Tim has always liked starting a lively debate!

 

I doubt if anyone has ever done some rally valid statistical work on modellers' preferences. Often, it's a chicken and egg situation. Are there a lot of GW tank engines (although some notable rtr omissions) because there are a lot of GW BLT enthusiasts? Or are there GW BLT enthusiasts because suitable locos are available?

 

I do share the puzzlement at the choice of Southern EMU. Surely a 4COR (which has much in common with some other existing products) would have made more sense than the 4CEP?

[PhilH]

I don' t much care - I can't afford the few they do now.

[Tim Hale]

It's funny how Bon Accord, who is merely pointing out flaws in the argument, is somehow "attacking" the Southern, when this thread is literally one man's action against me, personally.

 

Sorry Tim but the way you've presented your thread and "argument" and particularly the rather not-so-subtle digs at me don't really wash. You were unable to overcome the fact that you had little in the way of evidence the first time you provided this argument and I feel you're simply trying to stir the proverbial pot again with this thread.

 

Simon,

 

As your previous comments, elsewhere and on this thread, are somewhat inconsequential, you were not even considered when I began the list. I believe that the comment about 'miles ahead, was uttered by another.

 

Therefore as I have neither referred to you nor even quoted you within the thread or on my blog, I fail to understand how any comments are directed either directly or obliquely in your direction.

 

If you wish to prove otherwise, then do so, otherwise your comments are unfounded and merely antagonistic.

 

The thread was designed to indicate that the Southern railway has been relatively neglected by manufacturers, both in the past and remain the 'Cinderella' within the model railway community. Unfortunately it seems that every attempt to show the inequality of the situation receives that same response, to the shame of this forum, I cannot recall the complaints of others being treated in this manner.

 

It seems that the inequality of models is matched by the inequality of attitude shown to those on the thread who have merely asked for more.

 

In short, I am ashamed by the attitude of those who would deny fair treatment to those who follow the Southern and thank those who can see beyond the partisan bile.

 

Tim