The Black Hat Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Thus the B16/3 has morphed into a K1. I'd be ecstatic with either but preferably both. That makes two of us! Hi. I agree a B16/1 is a fascinating loco, they did get to March and therefore appeared on the GE system in BR days. However so many interesting engines got to March that it is necessary to be very selective otherwise they could outnumber native engines. The one I would be interested in is a GC A5 tank, they were shedded at Norwich for a spell in BR days and are a great contrast to the more common outside cylindered 2-6-4T. I have been collecting the parts for a K1 conversion but am reluctant to start as I was part way through an L1 conversion when Hornby announced theirs and had just finished an O1 when that was announced. So yes I would definitely have a K1 and probably a B16/1. Roger. Id also echo sentiments about the A5, as I really think that like the western region modellers out there, that the number of Eastern region large tank engines to be done will be something that is also seen as an area that needs to be developed - but not until after I get that gorgeous Q6 and J21! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLPG Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 That makes two of us! Id also echo sentiments about the A5, as I really think that like the western region modellers out there, that the number of Eastern region large tank engines to be done will be something that is also seen as an area that needs to be developed - but not until after I get that gorgeous Q6 and J21! Have to agree with a K1, Q6 & J21. In terms of a tank loco it is the A8 for me and would look fantastic in front of those new Thompson coaches. Most importantly you missed the J27 off your list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLPG Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Clearly you owe it to the rest of us to start the K1, as it will inevitably result in an RTR model! I think the demand for the K1 is clearly there based on the recent Hornby poll. 62005 for me! Can run on a modern image layout also Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Tony Wright has sent over a picture of a B16/1 and B16/3 on Little Bytham. It shows a B16/1 (built by Tony Geary from a DJH kit) and a B16/3 (built by me from a Nu-Cast kit at the dawn of time!). Though both these kits are pretty old-fashioned and obsolete, PDK's kit for a B16 certainly isn't (though please tell Tom that his should have 12-spoked bogie wheels). If such a model does appear RTR, where are the kit-makers to turn next? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Hat Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Those two look great. Love the B16/1 on the left, but would think that a new model would incorporate both! Heres hoping! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom F Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Tony Wright has sent over a picture of a B16/1 and B16/3 on Little Bytham. Thanks Andy. Could you tell Tony it's something I'm on too, but haven't got around to doing yet. Plus if he hasn't seen yet, to have a look at the B16/2 Mike Edge has built for me with several improvements on the PDK kit, which can be found here. It's currently in Tim's hands for weathering. Those two look great. Love the B16/1 on the left, but would think that a new model would incorporate both! Heres hoping! I often get shouted down for this, but I've often wondered if a rebuilt B16 with it's further forward bogie would be able to tolerate trainset curves. Unlike a Thompson Pacific a B16/2 or 3 can't swing it's bogie out as far as the cylinders are in the way, plus being coupled to the leading axle with a long wheelbase behind is going to make 2nd and 3rd Radius very difficult, even with a wonderful RTR chassis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Hat Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Do all new engines made for modellers really need to go round a first radius curve on a train set. The only real time they are used are probably point work. I would think models made really for the modellers market could stipulate that the engine will go round a second curve as a minimum. I know some Bachmann engines have had this for some time as a recommendation. Would the B16 need such curves, or are there other models where the cylinders get in the way and manage? Either way Id be happy if it meant sticking to a B16/1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom F Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Do all new engines made for modellers really need to go round a first radius curve on a train set. The only real time they are used are probably point work. I would think models made really for the modellers market could stipulate that the engine will go round a second curve as a minimum. I know some Bachmann engines have had this for some time as a recommendation. Would the B16 need such curves, or are there other models where the cylinders get in the way and manage? Either way Id be happy if it meant sticking to a B16/1 Yes which is what I said in my original post that they will struggle around a 2nd or 3rd radius. There is nothing currently in RTR that quite compares as the B16 is a 4-6-0 but unlike most 4-6-0s (B1 as an example) it is coupled on it's 1st axle, meaning a longer front end to the bogie. The wonders of RTR maybe able to deal with this, but the B16 arrangement is unlike any current RTR loco in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timara Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Yes which is what I said in my original post that they will struggle around a 2nd or 3rd radius. There is nothing currently in RTR that quite compares as the B16 is a 4-6-0 but unlike most 4-6-0s (B1 as an example) it is coupled on it's 1st axle, meaning a longer front end to the bogie. The wonders of RTR maybe able to deal with this, but the B16 arrangement is unlike any current RTR loco in my opinion. You're pretty much there Tom. Unlike the arrangement on say, an A2/3 (where the cylinders are set far enough back to allow serious bogie swing), the cylinders rather get in the way if they are moulded in full. As with the recent Hornby GWR 2800, the cylinders could be moulded up allow the both bogie axles to swing out enough, but allow a bit of modelling to take place should one have larger radius curves where the cylinders can remain fully intact. It's not impossible to do, but it's not the greatest way of doing compromise. There are other, more important (not to mention more straight-forward), classes to do first though, from all the UK's railway companies. I say that from a completely unbiased point of view . Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom F Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 You're pretty much there Tom. Unlike the arrangement on say, an A2/3 (where the cylinders are set far enough back to allow serious bogie swing), the cylinders rather get in the way if they are moulded in full. As with the recent Hornby GWR 2800, the cylinders could be moulded up allow the both bogie axles to swing out enough, but allow a bit of modelling to take place should one have larger radius curves where the cylinders can remain fully intact. It's not impossible to do, but it's not the greatest way of doing compromise. There are other, more important (not to mention more straight-forward), classes to do first though, from all the UK's railway companies. I say that from a completely unbiased point of view . Cheers, If you look at the new B17, that has had quite a clear cut into it's cylinder insides to allow the bogie to swing out. Going of that, and looking at the arrangement on a B16, it would mean even more severe cutting in it's cylinder.... wouldn't you say. I agree, there are far more classes out there, that would be far easier to tool up first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Hat Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 There is nothing currently in RTR that quite compares as the B16 is a 4-6-0 but unlike most 4-6-0s (B1 as an example) it is coupled on it's 1st axle, meaning a longer front end to the bogie. The wonders of RTR maybe able to deal with this, but the B16 arrangement is unlike any current RTR loco in my opinion. ...the cylinders could be moulded up allow the both bogie axles to swing out enough, but allow a bit of modelling to take place should one have larger radius curves where the cylinders can remain fully intact. It's not impossible to do, but it's not the greatest way of doing compromise. There are other, more important (not to mention more straight-forward), classes to do first though, from all the UK's railway companies. I say that from a completely unbiased point of view . If you look at the new B17, that has had quite a clear cut into it's cylinder insides to allow the bogie to swing out. Going of that, and looking at the arrangement on a B16, it would mean even more severe cutting in it's cylinder.... wouldn't you say. I agree, there are far more classes out there, that would be far easier to tool up first. Now hey! We dont want people thinking that the model companies can't manage and couldnt tool one up! I think from what youve said some compromises might be needed for a B16 - but Im not liking the sound of the idea that we cant have it if its a tad harder than normal. We end up having to have other engines, and I would lay money that if the B16 isnt getting done, then it doesnt bode well for any other NER machine to follow, unless of course your suggesting we just move straight into producing the Q6! Personally Im expecting a K1 from Hornby, which would be interesting to see how it sells in comparrison to other recent freight engines and how many are selected to be RTR with a North Eastern shedplate and not need renumbering... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 "Personally Im expecting a K1 from Hornby, which would be interesting to see how it sells in comparrison to other recent freight engines and how many are selected to be RTR with a North Eastern shedplate and not need renumbering..." Selects a suitable piece of hard cover for Monday... Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Hat Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Selects a suitable piece of hard cover for Monday... Dave. Doubt you'd need it.... others might.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.