Wright writes.....

[gr.king]

I wonder if any other juicy prototypes have recently visited Little Bytham under a veil of secrecy imposed by a manufacturer seeking to hold information back for a moment of artificial drama, rather than allowing observant modellers to make intelligent contributions to development as Heljan have done?

Edited July 20, 2014 by gr.king

[Tony Wright]

I wonder if any other juicy prototypes have recenlyvisited Little Bytham under a veil of secrecy imposed by a manufacturer seeking to hold information back for a moment of artificial drama, rather than allowing observant modellers to make intelligent contributions to development as Heljan have done?

Juicy prototypes under a veil of secrecy? 

 

Well, obviously I wouldn't disclose anything I was sworn to secrecy about. But, not really.

 

Anything in the future? I hope to give the Bachmann 1F 0-6-0T a spin tomorrow or Tuesday, but that's not a secret. On Tuesday, there'll be a J5 running, but that's a rebuild of a K's piece of antiquity and hardly qualifies as being juicy. Wednesday sees several exceptional loads being photographed on the layout for BRM, but these are hand-built models. 

 

Anything else? How about a C12 in the not-too-distant future? That's to be built by a young man I'm helping who, sadly, doesn't want to tell his friends of his hobby in case of ridicule, so that's a bit of a secret. Then there's to be a B16/1 and a B12/3, but I'm building those from PDK kits so don't hold your breath as to those being new, juicy prototypes for mass-manufacture. 

 

Seriously, Graeme, you make a valid point about Heljan's point of view. I think it's important that progress is seen to have taken place and been commented on. I have no special privileges in matters such as this, other than I've been asked to be a consultant to Heljan with regard to the O2s and have a decent-sized trainset on which to test engines. Believe me, had I not considered the locos to be splendid (even at this developmental stage), I would not have commented accordingly. Whatever tattered remnants of my reputation remain after my bout of depression, I still hope my conviction to tell the truth still holds firm. 

 

At Bachmann's press/trade open day today, my role as 'consultant' with regard to helping the firm with the forthcoming Thompsons was extended to include a further visit to them and an invitation to a representative or two from the firm to visit LB to test future locos (which you'll know about quite soon). They have several of my models of Thompson vehicles to examine. I still maintain it would be of some mileage to eventually include catering cars in the Thompson range. Any thoughts, please? 

[Mallard60022]

'Any thoughts, please?' 

Further coaches of a high standard; yes please. Loco's are great, however on train sets, loco's haul anything from (say) a single van to 15 coaches. Can they (your 'friends in high places'...... ) start to concentrate more on the fact that a very well researched (that is, in co-operation with modellers of some experience) & produced coach, in liveries that will be popular, competitively priced and with great bogies, will sell well? That's what I'd like you to work on Tony.

There are missing catering vehicles other than Thompsons, on all other regions as well. OK so they were usually single coaches within a rake, however look at the ES workings for example on the WR in the summer. There were often three, four or more catering vehicles of different Diagrams in the same ES train.

I realise there are many coaches already available, but and it is a big but, many contributors to RMWeb can name at least one coach that is really, really needed.

I shall leave the ER stuff to you and friends. The MR/LMS would probably be Larry's territory? WR...well, there must be a few people that model that region

I, in SR mode, shall place an order for Maunsell and Bulleid Catering vehicles (preferably rebuilt versions) please and the Bulleid D2123 BCK as I believe that is the Brake coach that was used as loose vehicles in multi destination trains such as the ACE and the 'other' brake vehicle in sets . It was the most numerous Bulleid corridor coach design as well. The existing Baccy Bulleid BCK is not the coach the SR gang want.

Have a fun week. It is going to be too hot for me to bother coach /hacking building this week, so I shall look forward to looking at your pics  after watching those biking boys in that country across the channel.

Cheers for now, Phil

Edited July 21, 2014 by Mallard60022

[Oldddudders]

I'm with the duck. Coaches are grand things, which is why I have more than 40 Hornby Maunsells, in 3 of the 4 liveries. Most UK layouts cannot accommodate long trains, yet pacifics and large GWR 4-6-0s sell by the bucket load. Catering vehicles do have their own appeal, &  fit well with such main line motive power - even if the formation is short.

 

At a time when the market is crying out for better Bulleids, a re-tool to 2014 standards could be a winner. And Phil is, of course, spot-on about Southern BCKs and their vital role in West of England services, splitting en route to serve every destination with a through coach from Waterloo.

[LNER4479]

I still maintain it would be of some mileage to eventually include catering cars in the Thompson range. Any thoughts, please? 

In my view, catering coaches are an under-represented and oft misunderstand vehicle type. So 'yes please' in terms of any influential lobbying to increase the chances of getting more of these vehicles in RTR form.

 

That having been said, I can understand why manufacturers might shy away from them as they were either built in small numbers or (even worse) adapted/converted from existing vehicles to create a bewildering array of prototypes to choose from.

 

THAT having been said(!), I would have thought that it was not beyond the wit of man to undertake some basic research to identify the types which were most widespread/numerous (over several different modelling 'eras/epochs'). I'm not so familiar with the Thompson vehicles so if I could perhaps quote an alternative example which I know something about from research into my own project - the Gresley Kitchen First (RFK).

 

These were constructed in small batches over a number of years and therefore minor variations exist (first question - exactly how critical is that on a coach versus a loco?) and, when coupled to an accompanying Third Open vehicle (either plain open or with a pantry area) formed the catering 'core' of many East Coast expresses (second question - how about selling as a two coach catering pack?).

 

Note that such catering vehicles are distinctly different in terms of appearance and use compared to a buffet car. In the Hornby Gresley range we of course have such a vehicle, its inclusion I'm sure influenced by the populist nature of the vehicle, being long-lived and hence surviving into preservation in numbers. Surely though there is scope for both dining and buffet catering vehicles being considered in RTR ranges. Within the Bachmann Mk1 range there is (I believe) and open dining coach - but where is the full kitchen car that it would most likely have been paired with?

 

Over on the Midland, surely there is scope for a manufacturer to produce a 'typical' example of Stanier's distinctive twelve-wheeled catering vehicles (the earlier LMS variant, first produced by Dapol/Airfix - can't quite remember which) now being a somewhat dated model.

[davidw]

Tony, Catering vehicles - yes please. In all prototype pictures I've seen pre - 1948 vehicles dominate the catering facilities on trains. Rakes of Mk1's peppered with Gresley or Thompson RF, either attached to an open coach of some kind seems very common. An open Thompson 3rd would be a very common vehicle, more so than the CK. In the official consists RF's whether Thompson or Gresley  dominate.  A hole waiting to be filled. Probably other regions too. 

 

I've often though that the Hornby Gresley buffet an odd choice too, incorrect in maroon and Blue grey (wasn't there a minor rebuild?). An RF would have been very much more useful and typical on crack expresses. 

 

If a manufacturer took a look at a Triplet set - there'd certainly be a wow factor, though as indicated by others a possible problem with the length of trains. 

Edited July 21, 2014 by davidw

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I don't think folks worry about train length unduly when presented with a good model. Most OO layouts are too short for a 5/6 coach train I am given to believe, but the BP sold.

 

Just one hearing of your express belting past with the change of beat mid-train as the triplet goes over the nearest railjoint should be enough to sell it to anyone who recalls this distinctive 'sign audible' of the ECML.

[Tony Wright]

Many thanks thus far gentlemen.

 

With regard to my (very modest) role with Bachmann concerning the Thompson vehicles, at the moment the intention seems to be that the new models will be duplicating what they've made before. That is TK, BTK, CK, FK and BCK (substitute 'S' for 'T' for later BR). Without actually re-checking numbers built, there were scores of the first two and dozens of the last three, but only penny numbers of RF/RUs and RKs and fewer than 20 each of the FOs and TSO/SOs (I'm not including the PV stock here). Gilbert Barnatt and I were perusing Harris's two great volumes last week and were surprised at the differential. So, in terms of a prototype proportion, then Bachmann's reasoning makes sound sense. Certainly, on summer Saturdays and peak-time extras in the late-'50s, Thompson stock was in abundance on the main line (and further afield, of course).

 

But, it depends on how these (no doubt outstanding) cars will be used. ECML/ER full catering vehicles were almost exclusively used in longer distance, long trains. So, an RF or an RU in a four-coach train would be impossible I'd suggest. However, many folk don't have layouts big enough to run scale-length trains, nor bother whether they're right or not. They just run whatever they like on their make-believe railways, often with their mates and have the greatest of fun. They are far more representative of the hobby than I ever will be, as I pore over mouldering documents and wring my hands with anguish as to whether some consist I've made up, running through Little Bytham in the summer of 1958 is correct or not, especially if it is to represent more than one train! One could ask, who gets the more enjoyment? To return to the point, the happier breed will quite happily run a catering vehicle in a train because they look so good. And, they do. What, with full branding, white windows in very different configurations and elegant interiors (say) a Thompson RF/RU in BR maroon looks very beautiful and impressive, especially on massive HD bogies. Wouldn't one of those sell far more readily than yet another ubiquitous TK, even though the latter was built in far, far more numbers? 

 

Another point regarding catering cars on the ECML in the late-steam period is that, though the majority of the crack trains consisted mainly of (the then new) Mk.1 cars, the catering cars were most often pre-Nationalisation, so bad was the riding of the B1 bogies in comparison. A glance at the make-up of trains on the ECML for the winter 1958/'59 period reveals (in part) the following. The West Riding/East Riding trains are not included in this document. 

 

DOWN.

 

7.50 am. 'The Talisman'. All cars Mk.1 except the RU.

 

9.00 am Newcastle. All cars Mk.1 except the RF.

 

10.00 am. 'The Flying Scotsman'. All cars Mk.1 except the RU (and the FK with Ladies' Retiring Room, which was Thompson PV stock). 

 

1.00 pm. 'The Heart of Midlothian'. All cars Mk.1 except the RF (and the SK with Ladies' Retiring Room, which was Thompson PV stock).

 

3.00 pm York/Newcastle/Sunderland. All cars Mk.1 except the RF and RSP (and a BCK).

 

4.00 pm. 'The Talisman'. All cars Mk.1 except the SO (dining) and the RU (and the ex-streamlined FO twins). 

 

5.5 pm Newcastle. All cars Mk.1 except the RF.

 

Other catering cars were either triplets or twins of Gresley origin. So, no Mk.1 full catering cars in the principal trains. 

 

Mk.1 cars are denoted by an asterisk in the official documents, so the RUs/RFs and Open cars could be of Gresley or Thompson origin. But, from the study of photographs, many of the said cars were Thompson in origin. 

 

That means, at least to me, that for followers of the ER/NER/ScR main line in BR days, a Thompson catering car of some description is a must. Bachmann makes almost all the appropriate Mk.1s anyway, so to complement that extensive range for the ECML, why not make an RTR Thompson RF/RU? Even if you don't bother making up exactly-correct trains, the combination will still look 'right'. 

 

I suppose a counter argument to Bachmann producing a Thompson catering vehicle is that they were almost all exclusive to the ECML. The general Thompson stock to be introduced was eventually far more widespread. Mr Duck and I were recently scrutinising pictorial books for his eventually making up of an inter-Regional train on the S&D. And, there they were - umpteen Thompsons behind S&D 2-8-0s and what have you. Look at any other region and you'll find dozens of shots of them in use.

 

Any further comments, please.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Tony

 

As noted in my PM to you, some friends and I are looking into the subject and will reply soon. I fully agree that some form of Thompson catering stock is vital (and that many will run 'compressed trains').

 

Brian

[davidw]

Digressing why no retooled BG? Though thinking about it the current BG can scrub up quite well

Edited July 21, 2014 by davidw

[Paul Cram]

Reading Banks and Carters' book on train formations the catering core was made up of 5 vehicles to which more were added as required. It would be possible to have just this on some part of the journey for some trains. Again this is LNER but covered lines other than the ECML.

[unclebobkt]

 

  ... .

3.00 pm York/Newcastle/Sunderland. All cars Mk.1 except the RF and RSP (and a BCK).

  ... .

Any further comments, please.

 

 -- Pray what is an 'RSP.'?  I enquire as those happen to be my initials. 

[Tony Wright]

 -- Pray what is an 'RSP.'?  I enquire as those happen to be my initials. 

Restaurant Second Pantry. Which was essentially an Open Second with 2:1 seating, branded RESTAURANT CAR, with a lock-up pantry at one end on one side. I assume the pantry carried cold food, crockery, cutlery and table linen. Does anyone know exactly because only the most extreme would model the pantry's interior? The outside was white-windowed and the inside had a door. Though I have posted shots of such vehicles, I'll take some more later today. There was no BR Mk.1 equivalent.

 

These ran (exclusively?) with an RK (full Kitchen Car), RF or an RU, forming the eating facilities (tables and seats) for second-class passengers. The RF itself would provide tables and seats for first-class passengers (with sometimes an FO for company if first-class accommodation were high - a business man's train, for instance) and the RU would most probably have an FO for company as well, or another SO/TSO if the train were all second-class. 

 

Judging by the initial response, a Thompson RF/RU could be very popular, plus a TSO. Who knows? But I'll pass on any comments to Bachmann. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I'd suggest the Thompson RF or RU instead of the CK. For a start there is a saving, no need to do the shorter underframe unique to the CK; and you get the very distinctive appearance of a catering vehicle which is also a perfect fit for reasons already mentioned with the Mk1s in the range

[jwealleans]

 

The RF itself would provide tables and seats for first-class passengers (with sometimes an FO for company if first-class accommodation were high - a business man's train, for instance) and the RU would most probably have an FO for company as well, or another SO/TSO if the train were all second-class.

I know it's the worst kind of pedantry, Tony, and I'll be elected Pope before we see an RTR one, but don't forget the SFO when talking about ECML dining combinations.  People of the day said they were treated like gold dust and two coaches had to be rostered to replace one.  Surely the type can't have been unique to the ECML?

 

The RSP (RTP in my era) had a small hotplate or something for warming food as well as providing extra storage for the adjacent kitchen. 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

All this talk of UFOs, RSMs and NCPs.... I'm struggling to recall a time when trains even had restaurant cars, not an airline trolley banging up and down the aisles....

[LNER4479]

Another point regarding catering cars on the ECML in the late-steam period is that, though the majority of the crack trains consisted mainly of (the then new) Mk.1 cars, the catering cars were most often pre-Nationalisation, so bad was the riding of the B1 bogies in comparison. A glance at the make-up of trains on the ECML for the winter 1958/'59 period ....

 

So, no Mk.1 full catering cars in the principal trains. 

There is another reason for this I believe Tony - many of the Mk.1 catering vehicles were not built until the late 1950's, many having a 1959 build date or later. They were (I believe) the last of the significant vehicle types to be designed/built within the Mk1 range, by which time the Commonwealth bogie was around which improved the ride somewhat. I also suspect that new build of catering vehicles was not the priority in the Mk1 programme, when there was enough (but maybe not ample) existing catering vehicles around (the disbanding of the former streamliner trains helping in this regard).

 

So the sight of a pre-nationalisation catering car within an otherwise uniform Mk.1 rake was 'typical' elsewhere than the ECML (for example, the St. Pancras-Edinburgh 'Waverley' express can be seen in late 1950's pictures as eight Mk1's and an early-LMS twelve-wheel restaurant car).

 

I observe therefore that post-war the building of catering vehicles got somewhat out of sync with other vehicles of the same genre. I'm fairly certain that there was no BR Mk.2 catering vehicle designed as such. The Mk.2 RFO's (for example) were a rebuild of some redundant FO vehicles in the late 1980's. Similar for the West Coast Mk.3 rakes which ran for their first 15 years or so of services with a Mk.1 caterer (and Mk.1 BG) in the formation, until finally ousted by the Mk.3 RFMs (more day coach rebuilds) and the DVTs - the generally later build date of the Mk1 caterers accounting for this.

 

Small (build) numbers of catering vehicles? Well, yes of course! Only one per train, whereas there might be up to four vehicles of the more numerous type (TK/SK especially) in formations but that doesn't get away from the fact that we need a catering vehicle in our five or six coach model formations to create a reasonably representative express train.

 

(I am happy to be corrected on the details of any of the above facts as I don't have any reference books to hand just at the moment, as I speed north - appropriately enough - along the ECML. But I don't think I'm too far out and indeed experienced the 'joys' of maintaining some of these Mk1 caterers in the early phase of my BR career(!))

[Barry O]

Yes  a model of the LMS Stanier build 12 wheelers would be nice .. but would they sell?  And a triplet set may come in at upwards of £100 - thats a lot to pay for a specialist set of coaches - and which set are we talking about?  and can they come in a variety of liveries?  Everyone wanted a Blue Pullman - well fine but there are q few knocking about unsold....and in this finance driven world is that a risk manufacturers can take?

 

Dining vehicles are a nice thing to have - choosing the correct one to model is always going to be a problem so I don't expect the RTR guys to ever do a Mark 1 Full Kitchen (anthracite stoves) or an ex LMS 50' full kitchen (with its accompanying 62 foot vestibuled diner to go with it) just yet..

 

My small collection of kits and coaches in stock does have a number of ex LMS, ex LNE and BR catering coaches ...  quite why I don't know other than I like them-  they may have very limited opportunities to run that much unless I find space for a layout shed!

.

[MJI]

If you shrink a train you usually replace say 4 TSOs with 1 or 2, but you keep the restaurant.

 

For BR we currently have no RBR as 16xx to 17xx type since the old rather nice Mainline vehicle this is the most common design.

 

The RU is in early form and the late ones look a lot different (mine is Comet sides on Lima base)

[Ian Smeeton]

It would almost be worth a manufacturers time and effort to put together a set of standard sized 'bits' of side, which could be re-arranged as required for the plethora of (certainly) Mk 1 Catering vehicles.

 

A Standard underframe and ends, with the provision to slot in the required No of Standard height windows/half height windows/blank sections/doors etc which could be purchase as a selection of parts to obtain the required vehicle?

 

Where a standard side profile is used by grouping companies, the same could be offered. Not something for the bach.far.bys of this world, but perhaps worthy of research by one of the cottage industry suppliers?

 

Just a thought,

 

Hat & coat at the ready (even in these temperatures)

 

Regards

 

Ian

[coachmann]

We have to remember RTR is still designed to go around toytown curves and 68' coaches just don't like it! The solebars would have to be set wider apart and then we are back with the mistakes on the Hornby Gresleys. It might be smarter to state these coaches are not suitable for XXX" radius. When trains are down to 5 coaches, a kitchen-diner can look a bit overpowering plus it will probably be running with an open diner. The LNER wins, as it's kitchen Diners were the same length as other Gresleys and the later ones were a very distinctive with recessed doors. 

 

The Southern looses out seeing as Maunsells Kitchen Diners were not put back into traffic after the war. However, some Gresley Diners were transferred to the S>Region and rebuilt with riveted metal sides and painted green, The Western Region was the other way and stuck like glue to its ex. GW catering vehicles....... They could be found in many front line trains into the 1960s even when the rest of the make up consisted of Mk.I's.

 

Most useful vehicle for the 1950's and 60's are the Buffet Cars and Cafeteria Cars converted from older coaches. These were found in many day excursions and extras and I remember the ones on the North Wales-Manchester route were useful for serving up beer.........Just the ticket on a warm evening!

 

 

PS: Just had a thought.....The lengthy BR Mk.III coaches must be capable of going round sharp curves but then they have shorter bogies.

Edited July 21, 2014 by coachmann

[Tony Wright]

Most useful information and opinions - many thanks.

 

I mentioned the non-standard length of the Thompson CK when I was at Bachmann's in February, but it still seems they'll go ahead with it. I suggested to them the notion of an open car or catering vehicle instead but it seems not to be, perhaps because of the necessity of heavy-duty bogies. 

 

And, it's right, the Mk.1 RFs and RUs were not built until the late '50s, but open dining cars and kitchen cars were amongst the first built, some for the Festival of Britain sets. Not only were Commonwealth bogies put underneath catering cars, but also heavy-duty Gresley bogies as well because of the poor-riding B1s.

 

 

 

This is a Gresley Third/Second Pantry. Built by Tony Geary from modified Trice/Comet parts. Shouldn't it be on heavy-duty bogies, though?

 

 

This is the Thompson equivalent. I made this from Southern Pride sides on top of a Bachmann Thompson donor, fitted with heavy-duty bogies. 

 

 

The Thompson Kitchen Car; again I used Southern Pride sides, a Bachmann donor and fitted HD bogies.

 

 

One of the Thompson RFs in 'The Elizabethan'; again from the same source as the two above.

 

 

One of the trio of PV Thompson RTO/RSOs, again made from the same source.

 

 

A standard Thompson SK. This was made from Southern Pride PV sides with the solebar coverings cut off. A Bachmann donor was used but the bogies left as they were. New ventilators (on the centre line of the compartments, NOT the carriage) were added. As with all such Bachmann conversions, the roof profile has to be radically altered.

 

All of these are very much layout coaches, and have seen extensive home and exhibition use over the last 20 years or so. Please, thus, forgive the odd scrape or rubbed-off bits. I'm convinced if Bachmann were to subsequently produce Thompson catering vehicles of some of these types they'd surely sell. They just look so elegant (the prototypes - not my pragmatic modelling!). If anything, I prefer them to Gresley stock.

 

 

[Mallard60022]

If RTR can not be achieved, enough interest and 'getting together' can result in a set of etches being 'cut'! OK so that means investment and work, however the sort of modeller that wants stuff like we have been talking about will usually be able to do a kit or conversion.

P

[Tony Wright]

Once more the computer has chosen to add a further image to my post above. I didn't open it because it said it was corrupted. It obviously wasn't. No matter, because it shows Tony Geary's Thompson Pantry Second. This was made from Southern Pride sides and Trice/Comet parts. It should have HD bogies but Comet doesn't make them (MJT does). Its colour is different from mine - quite natural in my opinion.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

If RTR can not be achieved, enough interest and 'getting together' can result in a set of etches being 'cut'! OK so that means investment and work, however the sort of modeller that wants stuff like we have been talking about will usually be able to do a kit or conversion.

P

Or pay for someone to do it for them.

 

Good initial point, though, and that's what we did at Wolverhampton with Dave Lewis (Southern Pride, bless him), Tony Geary, Norman Turner, Rob Kinsey and I researching, designing, generating, pattern-making, test-building and finally producing the etched sides/kits we needed.