Hornby - quality wagons to match quality locomotives

[JeremyC]

From the modeller's point of view does it matter if Hornby don't produce a good range of wagons providing Bachmann / Dapol / Heljan etc do?

 

I would suggest that it could make good commercial sense for manufacturers not to duplicate models, especially with wagons which are in the lower price end of the market. For a given wagon it may be profitable for one manufacturer to make it, but a duplicate product from another might simply mean two companies making a loss, discouraging either of them from producing such models in the future. Competition is not always good.

 

I would also suggest that wagons are one area where almost everybody could have a crack at kit building. Wagon kits are quite cheap and generally not that difficult to build unlike locomotives or coaching stock - so give it a go

 

Jeremy

[BSG75]

Is it worth perhaps coming up with some kind of wagon "consensus" for the next wish-list poll or survey ? With so many prototypes missing, wagon votes must get spread very thinly. Personally, if I had two wagon "votes", I would go for an LNER all-steel open, and an LNER vanfit.

[Guest Phil]

To be honest BSG75, I have been thinking about a sort of poll, but am not really a great fan of them concerning accuracy. Having said that they can convey modellers interests if structured to as kthe right questions.

 

I'll have a think about it and then try and set it up - probably against the judgment of Andy and the mods

[craigwelsh]

Hornby could I propose tool a 10' wb chassis with plug in brake gear parts to cover the LMS and LNER vehicles. LMS Standard van, 5 plank and corrugated end opens, LNE standard van, 6 plank and all steel opens. It seems to me that's an open goal, as Phil posted: have them in the shops at ??7 a throw or thereabouts, and they become casual pocket money purchases. Hey ho, the Parkside kits are the pocket money purchases instead...

LNER axleboxes were normally of their own cast front type with the LMS using split box but more importantly the LMS used j-hangar suspension on their fitted underframe while the LNER stuck to normal springing methods.

You would therefore need separate underframes for each.

 

The LNER one though would do a variety of vans and opens and the LMS one could do a decent Medfit, Lowfit and vans etc.

 

The LMS 1666 open would be a nice RTR item, currently its Cambrian kit only. 54,000 ish build...

[37079]

Surprised no one seems to have mentioned a Southern standard brake van.

 

This stikes me as being the sort of 'showy' thing Hornby might actually do at some point, if indeed a wagon can be showy (see the Shark, the Seacow and the exquisite van B). There's plenty of external detail to get stuck into and it's not an item most people would require in huge numbers so the possiblity of a premium price may be less of an issue than with a vehicle that ran in rakes of 20.

 

It would also match the existing southern items in the range and they carried at least 4 basic liveries in some numbers (SR brown, BR grey, BR bauxite and BR olive), there were myriad detail differences that could be modelled and they fit with the supposedly popular 'transition era' that seems to be such a consideration these days.

[Pennine MC]

I thought most of the original 'Bachmann' releases were all of the old tooling from Mainline etc that Replica had previously subcontracted? Indeed I thought the whole reason Bachmann becan in the UK was to use old tooling? They obviously then went on and revolutionised things a bit but they did start out with the odd stretched 16t mineral etc for a while so it was hardly clean sheet.

 

Perhaps I am being a little unkind, but how many different types of tension lock coupling do Hornby still have in their range ? To me, the Hornby range is far less joined up, presenting an untidy jumble.

 

It'd be fair to say Barwell had a less cluttered legacy, but even allowing for that, they've made more strenuous efforts to sort it

 

The LNER fitted 10ft underframe would allow a few 'common' varieties, some with the LMS fitted.

 

This is something I've analysed more than once and they're about evenly matched; the LMS one would probably tie in with more in the way of existing bodies. By comparison the BR gear is actually quite limited, beyond the obvious large numbers of vans, minerals and conflats (lots of conflats...)

 

Can the Tope underframe be reused for a decent 1950s coal hopper?

If Hornby designed the Tope underframe with this in mind - yes - (obviously !!!).

 

Somehow, designing it with the intention of using it for earlier hoppers (or minerals) doesnt strike me as a very Hornby thing to do

 

 

Little catch here - the bulk of the LMS opens, plus most of the LNER vans and opens, were wooden chassis. A standard chassis with plug in bits will not cover 9'wb vans on a wooden chassis and 10 wb steel OHVs

 

Wee - ell...

 

... if you've ever had a Bachy 13T PO apart, you'll know that the rolling part of the chassis sits in a little pocket formed by the solebars (which are attached to the body). There might be some snag waiting to trip me up, but the same thinking could probably be utilised to produce common running gear to sit inside wooden or steel solebars

 

That said though, both the LMS and LNER built more than sufficient 10ft wb steel-frame vehicles to justify tooling up, and as Paul says, the wooden frame variants didnt last as long anyway

 

From the modeller's point of view does it matter if Hornby don't produce a good range of wagons providing Bachmann / Dapol / Heljan etc do?

 

Probably not, although in true wishlist style I'd say it's a missed opportunity for Hornby Thing is though, Dapol and Heljan dont make a good range of wagons - they each do a literal handful that are up to modern standards (and much of Dapol's range is actually more archaic than Hornby's, albeit based for the most part on better original tooling)

 

I would suggest that it could make good commercial sense for manufacturers not to duplicate models, especially with wagons which are in the lower price end of the market. For a given wagon it may be profitable for one manufacturer to make it, but a duplicate product from another might simply mean two companies making a loss, discouraging either of them from producing such models in the future. Competition is not always good.

 

A fair point, although the well recorded effect of the Hornby brand image should count for something - many customers will buy the red box even if it's more expensive

 

I would also suggest that wagons are one area where almost everybody could have a crack at kit building. Wagon kits are quite cheap and generally not that difficult to build unlike locomotives or coaching stock - so give it a go

 

 

Another fair point but be careful who you suggest it to - there's more than one seasoned kitbuilder contributing to this thread; in fact it's because of our enthusiasm for these subjects that we're doing so. It's more about filling a large stock requirement easily and cheaply than the avoidance of acquiring modelling skills

[craigwelsh]

... if you've ever had a Bachy 13T PO apart, you'll know that the rolling part of the chassis sits in a little pocket formed by the solebars (which are attached to the body). There might be some snag waiting to trip me up, but the same thinking could probably be utilised to produce common running gear to sit inside wooden or steel solebars

 

That said though, both the LMS and LNER built more than sufficient 10ft wb steel-frame vehicles to justify tooling up, and as Paul says, the wooden frame variants didnt last as long anyway

 

Actually now you mention the plugin underframe on those (im aquiring quite a collection that i've ripped out!) Bachmann only need to do a body tooling to 17ft6" with t-section angle on the end to achieve the dia 1666 LMS 5-plank and just plug the existing extras onto it. I'd be happier using that than the Cambrian kit that needs home made buffer beams (I only buy body mouldings) and the floor widening (its an old kit now). Any wooden solebars 9ft wb vans could potentially be fitted onto the underframe too although it'd be a more complex mould.

 

I have a feeling they didn't do plug in steel underframes to to a) the solebar shape and B) the solebar thickness would be very thin to avoid the underframe. If Hornby did this method of construction though they could potentially have clip on solebars that should work..

 

Plenty more use out of either fitted underframe though than anything Bachmann have done on the new Presflo however.

 

I wonder if Hornby avoid run of the mill items because they want distinct livery choice and a handful of high priced purchases off a user rather than 10 sub ??10 ones. Even the new engineers stock hasn't really been mainstream wagons.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Surprised no one seems to have mentioned a Southern standard brake van.

That's one piece of rolling stock that could do with being available in RTR. The Cambrian kit is a bit of a nightmare due to it's strange chassis design (in the last 10 years it's the only wagon kit I've ever given up on) so a decent RTR model would be nice.

[Hammer]

One of the reasons Hornby don't look too much at wagons is the high quality of kit wagons available. I would guess that there are considerably more modellers willing to tackle a Parkside Dundas kit then there are modellers willing to kit build an engine. The kit wagons are also considerably cheaper then Hornby/Bachman et al and there is no real way Hornby could compete with them commercially while still turning a profit.

 

 

One poster mentioned a Hornby equivalent of blue ribbon wagons. I believe they did try something similar in the 90s. I still have a catalogue with a specially sectioned off page of wagons and I even own one of them. They are rather nice wee things. Not sure what happened to scheme.

[Ravenser]

Pennine

Jeremy C

Quote

 

I would also suggest that wagons are one area where almost everybody could have a crack at kit building. Wagon kits are quite cheap and generally not that difficult to build unlike locomotives or coaching stock - so give it a go

 

Unquote

 

Another fair point but be careful who you suggest it to - there's more than one seasoned kitbuilder contributing to this thread; in fact it's because of our enthusiasm for these subjects that we're doing so. It's more about filling a large stock requirement easily and cheaply than the avoidance of acquiring modelling skills

 

As it happens I've been tangling with a wagon kit while RMWeb is down . But it was only as a result of this thread and Craig Walsh's comments that I became aware that Cambrian had done the LMS 5 plank open (in both wooden and steel chassis varients) - and I discover they do the LNER six plank open as well. I need an open for the current tranche of wagons for the shunting micro , and proportionality says it should be an LMS 5 plank, and preferably wooden solebars - so assuming the next show I go to isn't cancelled, and someone is selling Cambrian kits, and they have these, I should get one...

 

But with 54,000 built LMS dia 1666 must have been one of the commonest wagons ever, not that far behind such old chestnuts as the 16T mineral , the BR 12T planked van, and the 1923 RCH mineral. As a matter of strict proportionality, for every black kettle you own, you need 8-12 of this particular wagon....

Is anyone out there up for building these kits by the score and dozen to get a balanced fleet? And the LNER 6 plank equivalent wouldn't be far behind in numbers.

 

Which makes this a bit worrying

 

Craig Walsh

Bachmann only need to do a body tooling to 17ft6" with t-section angle on the end to achieve the dia 1666 LMS 5-plank and just plug the existing extras onto it. I'd be happier using that than the Cambrian kit that needs home made buffer beams (I only buy body mouldings) and the floor widening (its an old kit now). Any wooden solebars 9ft wb vans could potentially be fitted onto the underframe too although it'd be a more complex mould.

 

pete macfarlane

That's one piece of rolling stock that could do with being available in RTR. The Cambrian kit is a bit of a nightmare due to it's strange chassis design (in the last 10 years it's the only wagon kit I've ever given up on) so a decent RTR model would be nice.

 

 

and the Walrus kit I've been fighting desperately is an old Cambrian kit , although in fairness the example I have must be at least 30 years old and I'm sure it's been retooled since . I've muttered several times that any future ballast hoppers will be Hornby or Bachmann. (It was acquired second hand from a pile of material left by a former club member - there were another 4 or 5 of them in there , and I reckon he must have bought a batch to do a ballast train , started the first one, come to similar conclusions as me and abandoned the idea, leaving the rest unbuilt)

 

In fairness the SSA/POA kit goes together very well

 

I'm perhaps a bit conscious of the wooden underframe issue , since I've reached the point where I need a couple of wooden underframe wagons for balance. I've got an old Parkside LNER van kit in the cupboard , but it keeps not getting built because I need to replace the underframe, and there isn't a suitable kit. (Parkside clearly have such mouldings , but it's not available as a kit. A scratchbuilt wooden underframe is not exactly shake-the-box with all those bolt heads and I keep chosing an easier option when I rummage in the kit box)

 

 

The LMS and LNER built a lot of wooden underframe vehicles in the20s and 30s - Shildon Works was essentially set up as a factory for mass producing wooden wagons

['CHARD]

I just visited the Parkside Dundas and Hattons websites to do a price comparison, and certainly when you're buying multiples of 4 - vans or minerals - Bachmann is the cheaper product, without taking consumables such as paint, adhesive etc into account. For fleet quantities - taking the satisfaction of kit-building out of the equation - it's RTR over kit on price alone.

[Guest Phil]

 

(snip)

 

The Walrus kit I've been fighting desperately is an old Cambrian kit , although in fairness the example I have must be at least 30 years old and I'm sure it's been retooled since . I've muttered several times that any future ballast hoppers will be Hornby or Bachmann. (It was acquired second hand from a pile of material left by a former club member - there were another 4 or 5 of them in there , and I reckon he must have bought a batch to do a ballast train , started the first one, come to similar conclusions as me and abandoned the idea, leaving the rest unbuilt)

 

(snip)

 

 

I'm glad Ravenser has steered this thread temporarily towards ballast wagons, in particular Hornby ballast wagons. There is no doubt that the Seacow, Sealion and Shark are excellent models, but TOPE, CLAM and RUDD ?

 

Again, I am trying to find the theme, the overall product range and how it fits together.

 

From my perspective these wagons are a mid 1980s product which survived into EWS days. The vaccy braked TOPE and CLAMS were never realistically going to have a long service life, but the air braked RUDD were likely to be a different proposition and may still be lingering on in Bescot, Toton at Eastleigh yards.

 

Hornby released the class 31 which was a staple ballast engine for the LMR and the ER and is very complementary to the new range of "dutch" wagons. The Hornby class 37 and 47, whilst a match in prototypical terms and less so. The class 73 could also be used, and I suppose the class 56 could be used on the Rudd.

 

 

 

I wonder though just what sales have been like for this range of sectorisation wagons. They are way past my period of operation so don't even pop up on my radar, but strike me as a useful wagon for people who wish to represent that era. Then I look at the new Model Rail annual guide and compare prices.

 

RRP for CLAM and RUDD seems to be 12.75 per vehicle. Similar products from Bachmann are the EWS MFA at 7.40 and the Railtrack PNA at 8.65. Obviously the Bachmann tooling is not so recent so was obviously cheaper in production costs, but there seems to be quite a gulf in price terms between Bachmann and probably it's nearest rival Hornby.

 

For the purposes of this discussion I don't really want to bring Dapol and Heljan into the comparison but feel free if you wish.

 

 

 

As I said earlier, an MFA / PNA at sub-tenner prices is the sort of wagon a modeller would have little hesitation in purchasing from his LHS. Not sure the same scenario applies to the Hornby products.

 

 

 

Please don't think this is a Hornby knocking exercise - it isn't. I'm just trying to consider the reasons why Bachmann have a balanced range whereas IMHO the Hornby "collection" is that - a collection of locos and coaches, with the odd scale wagon of interest.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Is anyone out there up for building these kits by the score and dozen to get a balanced fleet? And the LNER 6 plank equivalent wouldn't be far behind in numbers.

Back in the 1970s when the 3H kits for the LMS five plank and LNER six plank appeared, I was in hog heaven and built a dozen of each. Used the ABS kits for the fitted equivalents since these came with the very nice brakegear parts made by that company. These are all wooden framed vehicles, and are mostly used for sitting around looking tatty with 'cond' daubed on, in my circa 1960 scenario. Slowly making progress on Parkside steel highs (into my second dozen), then will have to tread a similar path with LMS corrugated end opens and LNER and LMS standard vans, then there's the 15' wb plate and double bolster family to tackle. I don't mind which of these bread and butter types appear RTR, just hope that a few of them do...

[Pennine MC]

Pennine

 

But with 54,000 built LMS dia 1666 must have been one of the commonest wagons ever, not that far behind such old chestnuts as the 16T mineral , the BR 12T planked van, and the 1923 RCH mineral.

 

It's certainly up there with the front runners (the LMS being a prodigious producer of wagons) - that total is well in excess of any of the BR High Goods and over twice as many as BR standard goods vans (total, all constructional varieties). It's still way behind the good old 16 tonner though - even the riveted version managed about 25,000

 

... I've got an old Parkside LNER van kit in the cupboard , but it keeps not getting built because I need to replace the underframe, and there isn't a suitable kit. (Parkside clearly have such mouldings , but it's not available as a kit.

 

 

 

Not sure what you mean there Rave, but you do know that Parkside will supply any parts at all as separates? 75p a moulding and a nice e-mail is all it takes

[craigwelsh]

As it happens I've been tangling with a wagon kit while RMWeb is down . But it was only as a result of this thread and Craig Walsh's comments that I became aware that Cambrian had done the LMS 5 plank open (in both wooden and steel chassis varients) - and I discover they do the LNER six plank open as well. I need an open for the current tranche of wagons for the shunting micro , and proportionality says it should be an LMS 5 plank, and preferably wooden solebars - so assuming the next show I go to isn't cancelled, and someone is selling Cambrian kits, and they have these, I should get one...

 

But with 54,000 built LMS dia 1666 must have been one of the commonest wagons ever, not that far behind such old chestnuts as the 16T mineral , the BR 12T planked van, and the 1923 RCH mineral. As a matter of strict proportionality, for every black kettle you own, you need 8-12 of this particular wagon....

Is anyone out there up for building these kits by the score and dozen to get a balanced fleet? And the LNER 6 plank equivalent wouldn't be far behind in numbers.

 

Which makes this a bit worrying

snip

I'm perhaps a bit conscious of the wooden underframe issue , since I've reached the point where I need a couple of wooden underframe wagons for balance. I've got an old Parkside LNER van kit in the cupboard , but it keeps not getting built because I need to replace the underframe, and there isn't a suitable kit. (Parkside clearly have such mouldings , but it's not available as a kit. A scratchbuilt wooden underframe is not exactly shake-the-box with all those bolt heads and I keep chosing an easier option when I rummage in the kit box)

 

 

The LMS and LNER built a lot of wooden underframe vehicles in the20s and 30s - Shildon Works was essentially set up as a factory for mass producing wooden wagons

 

The body isn't as bad as my post perhaps made out, picture of one made up http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=64&showentry=991comment1585 early Parkside needed a bit of plasticard down one side of the floor too, the old PC01 springs to mind. No idea of the underframe, as you can see I replace that. LNER 6-plank was an ABS in this case as I hasn't noticed Parkside do one!

 

As Pennine says Parkside will sell sprues on their own although you may already have a wooden solebar one that isn't very good I guess? They have recently tooled up a new 10ft steel solebar underframe. Our club bought 100 body mouldings of the RCH minerals and opens on their own.

 

Although the LMS dia 1666 is a decent high number its worth noting they went into engineering use or scrap when most of the wooden minerals disappeared so the numbers shouldn't really be reflected in the period the steel minerals were really being built.

[Ravenser]

Craig:

 

The situation is that I have an ancient (20 years old at least) Parkside LNER van kit, wooden ends , now deleted from the range. It has an incorrect 10' wb steel Morton underframe - as far asI can make out it would have been 9' unfitted or 10' LNER clasp brake fitted in either wood or occasionally steel

 

I also have the ABS LNER 6 plank kit. However as 2 of the 3 opens already built are ex LNER, and as I've never built a whitemetal wagon kit I was fighting shy of it. The thing that really daunts is getting a square smooth running chassis when the normal fixes and flexibilities aren't there - once you go for it you're irrevocably committed and can't adjust anything. Hence a plastic LMS Dia 1666 open sounds attractive

 

The relevant bit of the Cambrian range is here:Cambrian LMS/LNER kits and they , not Parkside, do the pre war LNER 6 plank: Parkside do the 1940s 5 plank (PC25) and the steel OHV (PC01A)

 

I'm thinking of getting this 6 plank kit too, then I can swap the chassis to the van , and use some 10'wb solebars and a packet of ABS castings to give a fitted steel chassis open to contrast with the whitemetal 6 plank . This may be the fastest fix.

 

I will look into Parkside spare sprues- the issue may well be a kit with solebars on the same sprue as the body parts - which would explain why PC66 and PC 50 have not resulted in a wooden chassis kit. Parkside LNER wagons

s

[Pennine MC]

 

The situation is that I have an ancient (20 years old at least) Parkside LNER van kit, wooden ends , now deleted from the range. It has an incorrect 10' wb steel Morton underframe - as far asI can make out it would have been 9' unfitted or 10' LNER clasp brake fitted in either wood or occasionally steel

 

If it's the one I think it is (single end vent, described on the packaging as something like a 'wartime' or '1940' van IIRC), then save yourself a lot of bother as it's quite correct (although it would probably benefit from a chassis upgrade)

 

LNER van

 

The above is one with RCH brakes (also built for the LMS in that configuration) but there were others with clasp brakes. If you desperately want a wooden underframe van, splash out on a PC61 kit

 

...as I've never built a whitemetal wagon kit I was fighting shy of it. The thing that really daunts is getting a square smooth running chassis when the normal fixes and flexibilities aren't there - once you go for it you're irrevocably committed and can't adjust anything.

 

 

I'm not as familar with w/m as I am with plastic, but it strikes me that the material will have a little give in it, to allow axleguards to be tweaked to some degree

[craigwelsh]

I also have the ABS LNER 6 plank kit. However as 2 of the 3 opens already built are ex LNER, and as I've never built a whitemetal wagon kit I was fighting shy of it. The thing that really daunts is getting a square smooth running chassis when the normal fixes and flexibilities aren't there - once you go for it you're irrevocably committed and can't adjust anything. Hence a plastic LMS Dia 1666 open sounds attractive

 

The relevant bit of the Cambrian range is here:Cambrian LMS/LNER kits and they , not Parkside, do the pre war LNER 6 plank: Parkside do the 1940s 5 plank (PC25) and the steel OHV (PC01A)

Low melt soldered white metal can come apart in boiling water so you can try again but if you assemble with a set square to hand and then flex it a little you should be ok. If you have the kits its worth giving it a go. I've basically 'welded the wm on the kit in the link as the solder I used cracked when I accidentally dropped it! As I use replacement underframes that are guaranteed square the body had only a cosmetic requirement for being square though.

 

Yes quite right I should have counted the planks, its in 7mm in fact they do the 6-plank - LNER 12 Ton 6 Plank Open Wagon Product Code: PS11.

[Ravenser]

If it's the one I think it is (single end vent, described on the packaging as something like a 'wartime' or '1940' van IIRC), then save yourself a lot of bother as it's quite correct (although it would probably benefit from a chassis upgrade)

 

LNER van

 

The above is one with RCH brakes (also built for the LMS in that configuration) but there were others with clasp brakes. If you desperately want a wooden underframe van, splash out on a PC61 kit

 

 

 

I'm not as familar with w/m as I am with plastic, but it strikes me that the material will have a little give in it, to allow axleguards to be tweaked to some degree

 

The packaging is very old = it says "Hadley Hobbies ??2.00" on it and I think I got it for a quid from a clearance bin as old stock. Listed then as PC05 and will almost certainly have come from the original Ian Kirk range. No mention of 1940 or wartime, but the body mouldings do match the photo , and it is 10' wb Morton

[rob D2]

I do wonder if Hornby are that committed to producing 'modern image' stuff at all.They got it spot on with the 60 but since then there has been little to shout about really.

 

They missed out on making a top spec 66 which I bet has been a cash cow for Bachmann, they have now missed out on the class 70 as well.I would have thought it would be essential to have a least one of the two in the catalogue for the future ( discounting the lima 66).They seem to concentrate on steam whilst flinging out lima rehashes left ,right and centre - which I won't buy on the principle it's 2010 and I don't want 1999 detail with a better paint job.

 

They make some strange livery choices - i.e the transrail/sector hybrid 60, when people appear to be crying out for sector and corus examples.this has been repeated alot but they do not appear to take heed of what people are saying.

 

If I was Hornby I would go for a high spec 67 (whilst Bachmann look the other way) - enough liveries now, good geographical spread and ten years in service now.

 

If this seems critical - it is, I am a customer and I want Hornby to continue in the modern image market, otherwise Bachmann will account for 75% + of my spending.In other words I want them to suceed.

[Ravenser]

You can hardly blame them for not doing the 70 - Bachmann were in there before the things even went into service. And you've omitted the 56, the HST , Pendolino, Javelin , and VEP. Two of those, nobody saw coming and they were very bold choices

 

There's more to life than Type 5s - especially in a wagon thread. We have seen new CE departmentals, a new OTA , a new Freightliner flat .

 

So modern image hasn't done too badly . Its traditional wagons that have suffered worst - I don't remember anything in recent years

 

As an aside - I duly tried to source a Cambrian open kit at St Albans , and couldn't . Not an LMS dia 1666 or 1667 nor an LNER 6 plank. Nobody selling them. And St Albans is something of a finescale show , with limited boxshifter presence. If you can't buy 'em , they won't sell. I ended up with a second hand Dapol open for ??3 which I think is the previously mentioned dia 1892 open under a false coat of paint

 

It's LMS, LNER and BR steam wagons that are the most glaring gaps in the range. Although oddly they are capable of the occasional pregrouping effort - dance hall brake , H&B van, and what I think may be an ex NER refridgerated van (confirmation welcomed!)

 

 

 

 

[rob D2]

Thats kind of my point - having lost out on the 66 i thought they would have been first in for the 70.

 

I think what it boils down to is there is more turnover of locos than wagons.How many dusty shelves full of wagons have we all seen in model shops ?

[Ravenser]

Thats kind of my point - having lost out on the 66 i thought they would have been first in for the 70.

 

I think what it boils down to is there is more turnover of locos than wagons.How many dusty shelves full of wagons have we all seen in model shops ?

 

 

How many diesel depot layouts have we seen? Perfect formula for a collection of locos without bothering about having any trains. We are not awash with steam depot layouts , which may well signal that there is a significantly greater demand for wagons in that sector (ignoring the fact it's 3 times larger than D+E anyway)

 

Modern image is the one area where Hornby's wagon range is vaguely passable. If you are building a steam railway set 1945-1968 , as so many do, they have very little that's accurate to offer you . Even the said LMS open is a very low key and only occasional presence

[Guest Phil]

Thats kind of my point - having lost out on the 66 i thought they would have been first in for the 70.

 

I think what it boils down to is there is more turnover of locos than wagons.How many dusty shelves full of wagons have we all seen in model shops ?

 

 

Maybe thats true Rob, but overall it's a bit of a defeatist attitude IMHO. The key to this whole argument is invest in something the customers want, at a price they'll pay and they'll buy it. Bachmann do it quite successfully and quite commercially.

[craigwelsh]

As an aside - I duly tried to source a Cambrian open kit at St Albans , and couldn't . Not an LMS dia 1666 or 1667 nor an LNER 6 plank. Nobody selling them. And St Albans is something of a finescale show , with limited boxshifter presence. If you can't buy 'em , they won't sell. I ended up with a second hand Dapol open for ??3 which I think is the previously mentioned dia 1892 open under a false coat of paint

I don't know of any Cambrian resellers, I bought direct off them at S4um which was great as I only bought the body sprues.