Jump to content
 

Choice of Loco to Model


Matchless

Recommended Posts

I was wondering; does anyone know what criteria Bachmann use when choosing to model a particular Loco? Famous engines such as Mallard and Flying Scotsman I can understand but Class 3F 'Jinty' 47266, a seemingly unremarkable engine that seems to have spent it's life between Crewe, Holyhead and Chester and a few other sheds then having been scrapped in 1967, it isn't even one of the preserved Jintys. I have nothing against Jintys, in fact I have just purchased a Bachmann OO version of 47266, which is what got me thinking about this. :scratchhead:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The vast majority of locos constructed in the late 19th and 20th centuries were 'seemingly unremarkable' but performed reliably and often heroically over and beyond the call of duty,especially through the Second World War. Isn't it good to celebrate the muck,the grime and the grit----the ordinary,in fact ? Get hold of a copy of the recently revised 'Each A Glimpse' (Colin Gifford).Maybe you'll see things differently. Most of us think it's wonderful that Bachmann and Hornby are continuing to produce examples of less glamorous locos,such as the O1 and Fowler 4F

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bachmann will often choose locomotives which offer the greatest operational period, for example 43038, which was the longest lived double chimney doodlebug. Alternatively, celebrities are sometimes picked, 75033 was a well photographed Cambrian coast loco.

 

On balance however they do select a good spread of run-of-the-mill workhorses, e.g. 41224 - produced 2006, an Ivatt tank local to me, and a regular on suburban push pulls to Bedford and elsewhere, but to most just another Mickey Mouse tank.

 

If you feel there may be a particular loco which may generate greater interest and demand, why not drop Bachmann a line.

 

N

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstood me, I was using the term 'unremarkable' to distuguish between the likes of the well known Mallard and the lesser known Jintys and not saying that any of these shunters were any less important. What I was asking is why Bachmann should choose a particular Loco.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, to be clear, you understand the choice of an everyday Jinty, or Collet 0-6-0, or O8 shunter, say, as a model to produce, but you're asking how they then decide which of the many suitable numbers to give it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, to be clear, you understand the choice of an everyday Jinty, or Collet 0-6-0, or O8 shunter, say, as a model to produce, but you're asking how they then decide which of the many suitable numbers to give it?

 

Hi Arthur, Exactly, you hit the nail on the head, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case Matchless, I haven't got a clue :no: .

 

Certainly for a run of the mill production model (as opposed to a commissioned model), hopefully, they chose a prototype which matches the model, bearing in mind the detail differences between members of the same class. Often preserved examples are chosen, I guess their higher profile can help sales, other than that, I've no idea whether there is any actual method of choice.

 

Interesting question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks to me that Neal has understood your question with his answer and has probably hit the nail on the head with his answer too. It is an interesting question, particularly when it comes to classes with hundreds of members such as Black 5s, 8Fs etc.

 

Bachmann do listen to feedback in this department it seems. Last year they announced that they would be producing 4MT 80154 with early crest. 80154 was a minor celebrity as the last Brighton-built engine, pulling a few railtours etc as the smaller lines started to close. It was pointed out to Bachmann however that 80154 either never carried and early crest or wouldn't have done so for very long, so they decided to release a different example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

47266 was certainly at Crewe South 5B in 1948/9 and again in 1964. However, it did move about a bit going to Alsage, Sowerby Bridge, Mirfiled, Wakefield, Stafford, Holyhead (twice) and Chester. Hopefully there is more to find out about this Loco. I have just this evening discovered a photo of 47266 at Wakefield in 1963, interestingly it is not showing any BR logo at all on the side of its tanks, just its number on the smokebox door and on the sides of the coal bunker. Nice to know Bachmann decided to model it anyway. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that the chaps at Barwell have some kind of head to head over these things. I know that they frequent, or at least used to frequent that wonderful emporium off the A5 in Hinckley for information.

 

I am however intrigued about the choice of one of their forthcoming J11 "Pompoms". They announced 64325 as one of the releases, a loco which ended up on Bescot MPD one Friday night, and which went out to bank slack trains up to Birchills power station the next morning. For this very reason it is on my shopping list !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine photographic evidence of a loco's condition would be a good deciding factor in choosing a number.

Especially in the sense of 'does it fall within the range of variations the model is tooled up to represent'? Following on from the earlier mention of 'celebrity' or well photographed locos, there is an interesting implication to the use of photographic evidence in this way. Photographers whose work has finished up readily publically accessible will stand a chance of having a disproportionate influence on the actual loco numbers that appear on models, and thereby potentially the regional coverage of models.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

However I would not suggest that there is any disproportionate bias.

 

Oh but I would - there seems to me at least to be a strong preference to Eastern/Anglian allocated locos with classes that operated nationwide. I cite as example the forthcoming Class 47 D1677 THOR in green with FYE. A Western Region engine...? Well not really - its actually in its guise during a short allocation to Stratford depot where the red backing to the nameplate was applied instead of black. Once back on the Western it was numbered 1677 (i.e. no "D") and in the later font.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to me at least to be a strong preference to Eastern/Anglian allocated locos with classes that operated nationwide. I cite as example the forthcoming Class 47 D1677 THOR in green with FYE. A Western Region engine...? Well not really - its actually in its guise during a short allocation to Stratford depot where the red backing to the nameplate was applied instead of black. Once back on the Western it was numbered 1677 (i.e. no "D") and in the later font.

 

 

Don't get me started !!! I want at least one GSYP Brush 4 pretty much in 1967 condition, to represent a D1800er. I would prefer not to faff with bogies side frames, not to have windscreen rivets and not to have to touch up the SYP to it's correct size. The latest TTG liveried example would have been good except it's bloody nameplates printed on the side. Of all the green duffs Bachmann could have done, they choose one of the handful of namers !!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think today model railway wise we've never-had-it-so-good, I well remember in the 1950's & early 60's we had very little choice. I was a Hornby Dublo person with a choice of about six or eight locos in total, how long did Meccano keep churning out 'Golden Fleece' 'City Of London' & 'Barnstaple'? Even in the early 80's when Hornby first introduced the tender drive locos they had to do 'Mallard' which they did for years. How many more sales would they have had if they just did a different name & number. It was the same with other classes too, what a golden opportunity they all missed. At least today they have finally woken up & started to produce a wider range of names & numbers which we all crave for.

Ian H

Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be more examples, but one decision that has always baffled me is how Hornby still haven't produced Q1 C1/33001, and its taken Dapol a fair few years to produce it in N gauge I'm not complaining in any way, the Q1 is a fantastic model and as soon as C8 was released, a friend re-numbered it for me, I just don't understand it!

 

Whilst I'm sure there are plenty of commonly preserved engines such as GWR prairies, black 5s and Jinties that have not been available in model form despite their class having been available, C1 is the only surviving member of the class, is part of the national collection and had a relatively active life on the Bluebell prior to its move back to the NRM.

 

I would be very interested if anyone knows of a good reason why C1 has not been selected.

 

Can anyone think of any other obvious omissions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I would imagine photographic evidence of a loco's condition would be a good deciding factor in choosing a number.

 

Stewart

 

Just had an email back from Bachmann re: 47266, apparently they have no photos of the loco in their files and it seems that the number was chosen at random. Hmm...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...