Lack of More Modern Units

['CHARD]

I'm not knocking dmu having 150 /158 / 220 and even a 142 less than a few feet away but I would also like a 442 or a 333 (living in W yorkshire).

So that's where the 442's have got to

[Glorious NSE]

I love the idea of modelling Gravelly Hill - in a very twisted way! It would be the model railway equivalent of modern art - identical trains every six to fifteen minutes in each direction, in a DDA-compliant drab station, set deep in a refuse-strewn cutting.

 

I think in terms of the station itself it's quite an interesting prototype, the old station building high up on the cutting side with the variety of steps and ramps down to the platforms is quite an interesting feature. I've spent a little while there waiting for trains as it was the closest station to where my in-laws lived when they were up in Brum.

 

Heading back towards topic though - I wouldn't model it as-is though due to the traffic - but that's not an argument against there being a 323, there's no reason why a 323 couldn't be used to model somewhere with a bit more variety like the line down to Bromsgrove, or out to Walsall though...

 

I would think for most EMU types there will be modelleable locations with interesting traffic and/or operations.

 

You wouldn't argue against Hornby having the 142 in it's fleet because Exmouth is boring operationally or Manchester Piccadilly is unattainable to most modellers....

['CHARD]

No argument intended whatsoever, merely a dig at one of our local stations for being so unattractive and bereft of variety as to beggar belief - per most of the Cross City stations.

 

You're right, of course these units have a place in settings with a bit more variety. One example to use for Birmingham 323s might be Aston - junctions at both natural scenic breaks, freight traffic along the Walsall line, 67s on WSMR push-pulls and DMUS (170 + 153 combinations in the main) on Walsall trains. That - to me - sounds like nice prototypical variety, and from a diesel perspective entirely achievable with RTR models.

[Red Baron]

So that's where the 442's have got to

 

 

ROFL....

 

it is amazing what turns up in yorkshire....

[Glorious NSE]

No argument intended whatsoever, merely a dig at one of our local stations for being so unattractive and bereft of variety as to beggar belief - per most of the Cross City stations.

 

LOL no problem, I wasn't meaning to pick holes or be argumentative either.

 

You're right, of course these units have a place in settings with a bit more variety. One example to use for Birmingham 323s might be Aston - junctions at both natural scenic breaks, freight traffic along the Walsall line, 67s on WSMR push-pulls and DMUS (170 + 153 combinations in the main) on Walsall trains. That - to me - sounds like nice prototypical variety, and from a diesel perspective entirely achievable with RTR models.

 

Yes, a very good example

 

You could even throw in a diverted Pendo or Voyager without stretching the point much.

[The Black Hat]

All I want is a nice new 142 or a 156!

[The Black Hat]

The first point is complete nonsense, let's face it! The south east has plenty of industry, statistically it still probably dominates the UK, as regions go. It's just that much of its output goes by other modes than rail, and none of it goes into the mainline termini so you haven't seen it.

 

Forgive me for thinking that big areas of Industry like Teesside, Sheffield, South Wales, Birmingham are all dwarfed by the output of the south east of England?! The only industry in the south east is banking and finances, which have kept British balance of payments sound for the last couple of hundred years or so - until recently....

 

Rubbish, I think you need to get out more - the Freightmaster hotspot with the highest train count is....Willesden Jcn! Definately in the South East, definately in commuter EMU land, definately with more freight trains than you can shake a stick at. Whilst at that location Felixstowe is a traffic driver there are others in London (try Wandsworth Rd down on the third rail where the drivers are Aggregates, flows to/from the tunnel and intermodal from Grain) where you will see plenty of freight and none of it headed to Felixstowe or Southampton.

 

I think the fact that Willsden junction might have tons of freight might be due to the fact that its on the North London line and so the only major route for freight to circumnavigate north of the capital ????? rather than its location I think you need to take into account strategic planning here ????? hence the gauge enhancements to divert freight away from this artery and send it via Peterbrough and Leicester.

 

Also - "Rubbish you need to get out more" - I'm not going to dignify that with a response...

 

As a practical issue, I would be the first to recognise that SE commuter operations are typically 8-12 car trains , and that if you are going to make them look credibble you will need to run at least some 8 car trains. That creates practical space issues for most of us. Similarly container trains a monstrously long things and a 6 or even 8 wagon Freightliner requires a good deal of special pleading

 

So I would accept that these are awkward subjects to model convincingly and have serious space implications ; and that the sort of railway that runs on 2 or 3 car DMUs is a great deal easier for most of us to model. This is why steam age modellers model almost entirely steam age branchlines, and why finescale layouts are almost invariably a loop and 2 sidings in a meadow where the light railway ran out of money, instead of depicting Whitemoor or Tyne Yard or an N7 with a pair of Quint-Artics blasting up Bethnal Green bank on a 3 minute headway (The current MRJ can be seen as a laudable attempt to put a very different and arguably more representative version of the steam railway in the showcase, with N. Shields, Derwenthaugh, Kings Cross and Alperton Sidings featuring - but then the guest editor is a former professional railwayman)

 

But while I fully accept the force of this argument, it's not the argument you were making . The argument you were advancing was essentially that operations in the south somehow aren't real and don't count -and this I definitely don't accept

 

Finally, a reasoned answer with which to converse! I agree that the problem with EMU layouts is that your running trains that are similar in length to a mainline express, be it an HST, 91 set or pendo. Equally so, freight trains are almost never run in full trainload length. The Jarrow oils would be amazing to see with a Hornby class 60 and subsequent oil bogie wagons being hauled down ?? Theres about 25 normally on this working and its one that keeps 60s running.

 

Space is indeed a problem, but so is to portray a railway that is just EMUs. I'm sorry but I still feel that a lot of railways in the south east, being particularly Kent and Sussex are in the hands of nothing but EMU operation. While this isn't true of other areas, I feel that it's important that the scheer volume of these things plying their trade has been recognised by both, but while some think its interesting , the lack of variety doesn't interest me as much. I don't think that they are not real, nor that they don't matter. I just think that such workings, even if the most frequent, are not representative of the many different other operations that exist and I choose to take interest in some of them. Areas in the south, towards the ports of Felixstowe, Southampton or areas such as Grain for traffic into London, Willsden for avoiding London and mail, or Acton for stone, are areas where you can see significant freight along side these EMUs in operation and thus the interest increases. Add some intercity workings and you have a very mixed scene.

 

However, the problem with EMUs is that they are limited by the fact they need infrastructure to operate. Although there are areas of EMU operations away from the mainlines they feed onto, areas such as Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds buck the trend with more suburban workings using EMU stock. Yet, DMUs don't need wires or extra rails. Given they are more versatile and often have worked away from different areas I still think that as a result there is a greater likelihood of them being needed for different size layouts, over other areas of the country and as a result, probably to different modellers and ultimately the probability is that it should be more than just modelling an area of EMU operation, despite the fact that the EMU lobby turned up in a thread about 2^nd generation DMUs.

 

['CHARD]

Oh dear. Is this some sort of spoof?

 

'The only industry in the south east is banking and finance.'

 

I suggest you look on Google maps (other providers are available) and click on the satellite imagery of the south east, then offer an explanation for the huge tracts of land occupied by large grey shed-like units. Maybe these are battery farms where bankers and brokers are reared...

 

I just finished on a construction project in central London, the out-turn value of which will be in the region of ??800m. Of this figure, roughly half equates to materials. Spread over roughly two years this means ??200m of bought-in materials per year, with an auditable commitment to local sourcing - in order to reduce the project carbon footprint.

 

This is but one project (albeit we were the biggest show in town until the Olympic Park got underway), ??200m of construction products per year all sourced from within the Greater London area. Multiply this by probably 100 and you get an idea of the amount of stuff being made in the South East - and this just for use in construction.

[Mod6]

Erm, I sense a bit of a temperature rise here, can we make sure it doesn't develop into a bunfight please?

[Glorious NSE]

I think the fact that Willsden junction might have tons of freight might be due to the fact that its on the North London line and so the only major route for freight to circumnavigate north of the capital

 

Right...just like Barnetby is very busy because all the freight in the area has to go through there, just like Carlisle is busy because all the freight in the area has to go through there...and so on and so forth...

 

Willesden is not only busy on the cross-North-London axis for container trains, it's a hub between trains from the South, South West and West to the North West, North and East, and vice-versa in many configurations!

 

Finally, a reasoned answer with which to converse! I agree that the problem with EMU layouts is that your running trains that are similar in length to a mainline express,

 

 

Or

 

 

I'm sorry but I still feel that a lot of railways in the south east, being particularly Kent and Sussex are in the hands of nothing but EMU operation.

 

And a lot of railway in other area's is nothing but DMU operation, engineering work excepted we don't get many loco hauled trains to Barnstaple or Exmouth for example - but i'll say again nobody seems to be arguing lines like that being in existence as a case for not having models of DMUs!

 

The case you made earlier for an urban depot/freight facility with DMU shuttle could be modelled just as effectively with an EMU shuttle if it were set in an electrified part of the country.

 

Areas in the south, towards the ports of Felixstowe, Southampton or areas such as Grain for traffic into London, Willsden for avoiding London and mail, or Acton for stone, are areas where you can see significant freight along side these EMUs in operation and thus the interest increases. Add some intercity workings and you have a very mixed scene.

 

That's exactly what several folk here have been saying - so if you agree you can use them with your other trains in a nice varied mixed traffic environment what exactly is your problem?

 

Yes, prototypically you will need to add a 3rd rail or overhead (or both) to suit - although i'd bet there are plenty of Pendolino's running round trainsets happily without bothering! A dummy 3rd rail isn't a big task though, overhead is a bit more involved but there are ways and means of making it acheivable even if not particularly scale, for example Hornby had their own range a couple of years back.

[The Black Hat]

My problem is I started the tread to talk about DMUs or can no one else read?!

 

I want to find out which DMUs people want - why they want them, for modelling where, how many they would have? Is there a preference for which company makes them, how much detail do they think that should be put on to a new DMU model? If its DCC what kind of features should you be able to use.

 

I dont care nor like EMUs. It clearly states that this thread is with reference to 2nd Generation DMUs. So if you want to get chatting about anything else - start your own thread!

[Glorious NSE]

Okay mate point taken - can I point out you could have said that a couple of pages ago before you started ranting on about the South East not having any industry or freight trains though!

[The Black Hat]

Thanks...

 

Yeah I could have... but you stand at Teesside and see Industry... Old fashioned heavy stuff yeah. Theres plenty of other hi-tech stuff about. Patterns of freight and where it goes are matters for somewhere else. Douth South, I dont think there is as much industry, merely goods passing through or being brought to where they are needed. But thats the topic for a discussion somewhere else.

 

As Ive said before.... I'd just love a new 142 - preferably one that bounces....

[The Black Hat]

So, to try and start again.....

 

With manufacturers having made just about every main type of diesel locomotive, many to the high standard required and desired for DCC modelling - with the sound, changing lights, etc. Do people feel that DMU's - particualry those of second generation merit similar treatment. While some have been made before, some first generation units knock the spots off my units that I have for current units on the network. The Bachmann 108 looks great with brilliant details, but surely a 156 or 142 to similar treatment would be a brilliant seller. Bachmann have started with the 150 (shame about that chassis block) but would people like others.

 

So, what about questions like,

 

why we want them?

Wher are you modelling?

how many they would have, and of which kind?

Is there a preference for which company makes them?

how much detail do they think that should be put on to a new DMU model? If its DCC what kind of features should you be able to use.

How much do you think they should cost?

[Mod3]

A gentle reminder for calm postings please - including the originator who has wandered off the subject himself and then complained when others do.

 

Thank you

[grahame]

Allow me to clarify a few points from my own little planet.

 

What I raised was the issue of areas of the country, predominantly the south east, where lines are serving just commuter traffic.

 

 

That's not true, lines in the SE aren't just for commuter traffic. Here are some others I can think of off the top of my head;

 

- 'cross London' trains from Brighton to Bedford and Northampton (Thameslink),

- special 'express' services (Wessex Express to Weymouth for example and Gatwick express),

- inner and outer long distance surburban services,

- 'inter-city' lines South West from London to Wales and the SW/Exeter (as well as former Brighton to Scotland services),

- 'cross country' routes starting, terminating and traversing SE lines,

- the 'high speed' channel tunnel services to London,

- cross channel passenger 'shuttles',

- plenty of passenger 'leisure services' such as the Cathedrals expresses and VSOE Pullman cruises,

- former 'famous passenger services' such as the Brighton Belle, Ferry trains, Orient express, etc

- international freight using the chunnel,

- plenty of local frieght (including former MGR trains), etc.

 

G.

[Trevellan]

Frankly, I would like to see some effort being made to upgrade or re-tool existing models. I have a couple of Hornby class 121s and the later of the two was supplied with traction tyres, much to my annoyance. I'd like a blue/grey and NSE version, but will not buy any moer examples of the existing model now. I also have examples of Bachmann's 158 and 159, both of which are quite good, but not DCC-ready. Changes to the prototype 158/159 fleets offers new opoprtunities for Bachmann to update the model to what we now regard as current standards. I think the same could be said of the class 170s and, given their longevity, the Pacer fleet is definitely under-represented by a decent model to current standards.

[The Black Hat]

I agree Trevellan

 

The Pacer fleet certainly is under-represented. But here in lies a problem. Most enthusiasts crave for locomotive hauled workings, yet the humble Pacer, which is quick of the mark, good at stopping services, admitadly bouncy on jointed track and does flange like hell on a tight corner - is often derived for the way it works and how it does its job. While sprinters are more favourable to some, the Pacer fleet has provided sterling service, across many areas of the country. I dont understand how a model of the class 143 and 144 hasnt been done yet, given they are both the same train, just with different running numbers. Add that the 142 has been around many areas of the country and carried a whole number of liveries you question why they arent being made when the gap in the modelling fleet for a good model is there and needs filling. Surely a model that would be a good seller like that would be welcomed by a company coming out of a recession and wanting good sales?

[Glorious NSE]

I think part of the problem here with the 142 is that there is an existing model, which whilst nowhere near modern standards isn't awful by any means - the construction of the existing model I think would mean Hornby would need to start from scratch to do one to a modern standard. If that didn't exist it would be a huge hole in the market, but with it existing and folk already having ones in their fleets I can understand a manufacturer being reluctant to bet real money on it.

 

A 143/144? Possible I guess, it's certainly a gap and these days isn't a lot different from a 142 in terms of modern liveries available. If a new manufacturer did it and was clever they could probably arrange it to give at minimum an internal rolling chassis for a modern 142 as well - but the 143/144 does seem to have been the unsung build of an unsung genre of unit...downside is I think it's not just a case of doing a 143 because all the other units have been done, it would be competing not with other 2nd Gen DMUs but with all the other stuff in a companys development budget - i'd still rate a 20m Desiro as a better bet, or a class 70, and i'm sure there are plenty of other smoky-kettle-type devices which also rate as potential new models. Is it more important than those? Hmmm maybe...but again i'm not holding my breath.

 

I don't think i'd rule out a "refresh" of Bachmann's 158 though, with the modular shell construction being used I think they could probably tool a new cab end with better lighting (and provision for plows?) and a roof that accomodates external a/c units without junking the rest of the model which still holds up fairly well.

Mod the electrics to the same standard as the 150 (needed for the lighting mods and to add PnP DCC) and I think you've brought that model reasonably up to date without starting from scratch.

 

Other than that for production 2nd Gen units?

 

The 156 I think is a nice body, putting a similarly nice chassis under it (Hornby sharing the 153 style tech?) would bring it up a long way.

The 155 I think is lost cause territory - your only hope is Hornby deciding to use the 153 chassis with a new body (or can you do such a homebrew mod yourself?) Don't hold your breath for a RTR one though as the RR ones were very short lived and the surviving WYPTE fleet is limited in area.

 

Having said all that - and to put a positive slant on things, the only production 2nd Gen type not available RTR is the 143/144 - all others have at least some type of RTR model available even if it's not to modern standards. Contrast with a few years back when we had basically the Bachmann 158, Lima 156 and the Hornby 142 as a "token modern DMU" from each company, plus Dapol's slightly cheesy 155 and their frankly laughable attempt at a 150. We're far better off now with a proper 150 and 153, you can at least model most of the fleet, or to put it another way there will be very few places in the DMU-operated parts of the UK where there won't be any relevant DMU model.

 

Even the 143/144 are acheivable with the DC Kits resin ones, not easy to get running nice but the one-piece body makes them at least easy to build.

[Ravenser]

Which brings us back to the issue that the most fertile territory for new RTR DMUs is Modernisation Plan units. At present we have just 3, (108, 101, 121) with one more (105) promised. No high density units, no cross-country units. A new first generation DMU from Hornby to modern standards has to be one of the more obvious RTR prophesies

[Burkitt]

The 155 I think is lost cause territory - your only hope is Hornby deciding to use the 153 chassis with a new body (or can you do such a homebrew mod yourself?)

 

Quite a few people did conversions from the Dapol/Hornby 155 to a 153, so doing one the other way around should be possible, albeit expensive.

 

Paul

[cromptonnut]

So that's where the 442's have got to

 

The 'plastic pig' Wessex units are working some Gatwick Express services now.

[Glorious NSE]

Quite a few people did conversions from the Dapol/Hornby 155 to a 153, so doing one the other way around should be possible, albeit expensive.

 

Anything is possible, but I think 153-155 is not as easy as 155-153 as you have to add the matching coach windows this way rather than just plating them over!

 

My wonder was whether the chassis from the 153 would fit as a simple underframe/drive upgrade, that would definately be expensive though...

 

The 'plastic pig' Wessex units are working some Gatwick Express services now.

 

Yes, but I think the comment you quoted was in relation to them being used in Yorkshire...

[Revolution Mike]

Do people feel that DMU's - particualry those of second generation merit similar treatment.

 

Given that you are narrowing what people can discuss - simply "no". Given that models do exist of many of the 2nd gen DMUs where is the value to the manufacturers? Sure they are not all to current standards, but that is life. I would rather manufacturers concentrated on filling gaps rather than chasing the same market, after all fill some gaps and you might actually grow the market.

 

The Bachmann 108 looks great with brilliant details, but surely a 156 or 142 to similar treatment would be a brilliant seller. Bachmann have started with the 150 (shame about that chassis block) but would people like others.

 

Perhaps, but it is still a risk for manufacturers as they have to convince people who have already bought to upgrade - are existing models *so* bad to do that?

 

I can't help feeling that you are trying to make a case for your particular wants/needs - nothing at all wrong with that, but be honest about it and don't be surprised if people disagree with you (or tell you where you are wrong eg about the SE).

[Karhedron]

Which brings us back to the issue that the most fertile territory for new RTR DMUs is Modernisation Plan units.

I am inclined to agree here. The Swindon cross-country units spring to mind as ideal candidates and I am sure a good case could be made for other units too.

 

For longevity and livery variation these units certainly have some advantages. In green livery they could run alongside many classes of steam engine (fitting into that magic "transition era" niche) whilst many survived until the early 1990s and wores some of the more colourful sectorization era liveries like NSE.

 

As Bachmann seem to be sticking with the 57' units, surely Hornby could see some value in going after the 64' family?