RMweb Gold Phatbob Posted June 24, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 24, 2014 I wonder if I should 'kick start' this possible project? Yes please Dave. We need a few for this http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/67894-star-lane-hooley/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted June 24, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 24, 2014 Can I request an APT-E please? Oh b*gger............................ Note to self - read other new products first. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilks Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Nothing original in my request, all LNER/BR(E): For simplicity J6 - used on most parts of the GN system from London to east and west Yorkshire, and also used on the M&GN and across to Stafford in the west J50 - like the J6 widely used including in Scotland with 4 different sub classes N7 - used across the GE system and the London end of the GN For something larger and more complex C1 - large atlantic - one of the best looking edwardian steam engines and highly regarded by their crews V2 - a decent model - the current "blue box" model is still too wrong!! P1 - probably Gresley's best looking engine (without the booster) and for something not LNER a BR standard 84000 2-6-2tank Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium James Makin Posted June 25, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 25, 2014 Another vote for the OAA open wagon, and also a modern-spec Class 59 diesel would be really interesting Cheers James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr chapman Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 71 in N please. I'll knock off a bank if need be! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gelboy45 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 71 in N please. I'll knock off a bank if need be! I'll sell the grancdhildren!! Gerry ;O)) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium EEType4 Posted June 28, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 28, 2014 (edited) I wonder if I should 'kick start' this possible project? There would be a few variations to go at Class 71 Plain green Class 71 Green small yellow panel Class 71 E5001 Green small yellow panel as preserved and in association with the NRM? Class 71 Rail blue pre-tops numbers Class 71 Rail blue tops numbers Class 74 Rail blue pre-tops numbers Class 74 Rail blue tops numbers All would of course come with etched "Golden Arrow" headboards and arrows. Just mentioning it, that's all. (When will they be available to order?) Edited June 28, 2014 by EEType4 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr chapman Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Yes indeed! Two greens and a blue would do me. +1 on the Golden Arrow version. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBSqlW1Eq8U&feature=youtube_gdata_player N gauge please. The people have spoken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaZagato Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Electro-diesels in N. I can dig it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Just looking at a few drawings, there are a lot of commonalities (as might be expected) between the N2 0-6-2T and the V1/V3 2-6-2T, neither of which have been done in N and both long in the tooth in OO. Both saw service in London and Glasgow with a good spread in between, and both are suitable for smaller layouts. They also share a wheelbase with the J50 0-6-0T, another not available currently in any scale. All the very best Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Hi Les I totally agree. I think the J50 in particular (and J6 0-6-0 tender loco) have gained quite a bit of support. In the J50's case it seems a very logical choice given the points you mention plus the simplicity of the design which will hopefully help mitigate tooling and assembly costs to bring it in at a price point similar to the Farish Jinty or Dapol 57xx. It should have space for a decoder (even if a Bachmann 90 degree one) and comparatively big tanks also mean room for traction weight. The only downside I can think of is that as far as I know the J50 was not fitted with vacuum brake making it unsuitable for passenger trains or fitted freights thus limiting it a bit operationally? Regards Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Hi Les I totally agree. I think the J50 in particular (and J6 0-6-0 tender loco) have gained quite a bit of support. In the J50's case it seems a very logical choice given the points you mention plus the simplicity of the design which will hopefully help mitigate tooling and assembly costs to bring it in at a price point similar to the Farish Jinty or Dapol 57xx. It should have space for a decoder (even if a Bachmann 90 degree one) and comparatively big tanks also mean room for traction weight. The only downside I can think of is that as far as I know the J50 was not fitted with vacuum brake making it unsuitable for passenger trains or fitted freights thus limiting it a bit operationally? Regards Roy Given the choice, I'd rather have the V1/V3, though a number of J50s did find their way to Darlington shed for a time, moved on because the shorter wheelbase of the J94 made them more useful in and around the works. Still hoping for an NER prototype (beyond the J72) from someone.... All the very best Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I would like to see the GWR heavy 4200 2-8-0 and 7200 2-8-2 tanks in N gauge. Whilst originally intended for heavy coal traffic in the south wales valleys, they eventually turned up on loads as diverse as iron ore and china clay. Hornby's 00 versions were perhaps rather spoiled by haphazard research and careless application of "design clever" (a phrase that deserves to be up there with "wardrobe malfunction" ). But an N gauge version that learns from those mistakes would be rather tasty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Of course the 61xx prairie is overdue for new models in both OO and N. One GWR loco I MIGHT be tempted by...... Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium TrevorP1 Posted July 13, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 13, 2014 Dave Forgive me if this is going over old ground re the economics of producing wagons etc, but... I have spent a fair part of this weekend trying to make an ECC CDA from a major 00 manufacturer actually look like the item it is supposed to represent. The more I study photos, the worse it seems. I only need a handful for a diorama but, for once, I am glad I'm not one of those lucky people who have the room for running full trains! These vehicles run in block trains, so any modeller will need a fair number, there are two possible liveries and it wonderful is a candidate for weathering by your contacts at Mercig. Is that an economic proposition? I would pre-order half a dozen today... Trevor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Another one I would like to see is the GWR 9400 class pannier. This is a fairly straight-forward 0-6-0 and another easy win for both 00 gauge and N gauge as the Lima and Farish-Poole offerings are pretty dated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium James Makin Posted July 14, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 14, 2014 Dave Forgive me if this is going over old ground re the economics of producing wagons etc, but... I have spent a fair part of this weekend trying to make an ECC CDA from a major 00 manufacturer actually look like the item it is supposed to represent. The more I study photos, the worse it seems. I only need a handful for a diorama but, for once, I am glad I'm not one of those lucky people who have the room for running full trains! These vehicles run in block trains, so any modeller will need a fair number, there are two possible liveries and it wonderful is a candidate for weathering by your contacts at Mercig. Is that an economic proposition? I would pre-order half a dozen today... Trevor Take the lid off, put some black stuff in and I'd preorder about 72! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilks Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Hi Les I totally agree. I think the J50 in particular (and J6 0-6-0 tender loco) have gained quite a bit of support. In the J50's case it seems a very logical choice given the points you mention plus the simplicity of the design which will hopefully help mitigate tooling and assembly costs to bring it in at a price point similar to the Farish Jinty or Dapol 57xx. It should have space for a decoder (even if a Bachmann 90 degree one) and comparatively big tanks also mean room for traction weight. The only downside I can think of is that as far as I know the J50 was not fitted with vacuum brake making it unsuitable for passenger trains or fitted freights thus limiting it a bit operationally? Regards Roy Roy Most of them did have vacuum brakes. The J50/1, J50/2, and the J50/4 sub classes had vacuum brakes. The 38 engines of the J50/3 sub class were not vacuum fitted. Even though vacuum fitted most (except the J50/4s) were only fitted with a 3 link coupling which was not supposed to be used on passenger trains. The J50/4s had a screw link coupling. There are exceptions to this - see the RCTS Green Book and Yeadons 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 How about an LMS design 0-6-0 shunter? I nominate this on the basis that: 1 - They date from the 1930s and so can become honorary kettles 2 - They don't have a coathanger on the roof as they don't run off electric string, and so according to some, should not frighten or cause "the majority" of modellers to come out in boils or other pestilential afflictions 3 - Less acidly, they are a compact, attractive and long lived piece of railway history, which went on to serve on some industrial sites, and with the WD. Some even were sent abroad. My thought would be to do an Armstrong-Whitworth "jackshaft" design from the first batch built in 1936 although all ended up in war service abroad bar one which stayed with the WD, limiting liveries. However, the "jackshaft" would differentiate it from the BR standard 08/09 design. As an alternative, the 1939 batch of 7080-7119 were also jackshaft driven, and have the added benefit of being English Electric powered allowing an 08 sound chip to be used, and 30 of the 40 made it through the war to serve with BR until the mid 1960s. I think in many respects the LMS diesel shunters were one of the most significant items of traction of the 20th Century, giving the railways confidence to explore diesel traction more widely, having significant wartime service and leading to a number of important export orders after their war service on European and Middle East railways. As such, they are probably as worthy of a decent model as anything else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 ....... the 1939 batch of 7080-7119 were also jackshaft driven, and have the added benefit of being English Electric powered allowing an 08 sound chip to be used, and 30 of the 40 made it through the war to serve with BR until the mid 1960s. Now that is an inspired suggestion! A subject with a long timescale and several livery options. We've not had an RTR 'dinosaur diesel' shunter yet - it'd have wide appeal, I'm sure. Regards, John Isherwood. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSB Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 While the jack-shaft drive shunters were very distinctive I think I would go for the twin-motored LMS shunters introduced in 1945 and which continued in production under BR until the introduction of the 08. These were more numerous than the single-engine jack-shaft versions and some later passed into industrial use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) Interesting thoughts, but to play Devils Advocate with the number of common BR diesel shunters already produced by BachFarish (08, 04,03 and arguably Class 14 to an extent) would there really be a market that is large enough to support the necessary sales volumes for any such "niche" models? Regards Roy Edited July 15, 2014 by Roy L S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) While the jack-shaft drive shunters were very distinctive I think I would go for the twin-motored LMS shunters introduced in 1945 and which continued in production under BR until the introduction of the 08. These were more numerous than the single-engine jack-shaft versions and some later passed into industrial use. True - but are they sufficiently different from a standard BR/EE 350HP (08 to the youngsters) to appeal to the wider market? The jackshaft drive would mark out the earlier shunters as 'something a bit different'. Regards, John Isherwood. Edited July 15, 2014 by cctransuk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSB Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) While superficially similar the smaller wheels, lower running boards and differently shaped cab roof gave the TOPS Class 11 a slightly squatter appearance than the 08. Also, from a purely personal perspective, I spotted several of the 1945 twin-motored class but none of the earlier jack-shaft ones. Edited July 15, 2014 by HSB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I suggested the jackshaft drive version as it is visually quite different to the 08/09 design, whereas the twin motor LMS shunters look similar to the BR standard designs to those not familiar with the detail differences. There's also the chance to do wartime liveries and (more for collectors due to the scale differences) limited edition Egyptian or Italian liveried versions, which might appeal to some as a collectable (they'd be too big of course for HO modellers!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts