DJM wish list thread

[Adams442T]

It would be nice to have, in view of the many pre-grouping locos now available, a definitive 1907 RCH goods wagon.  These lasted well through grouping and into the 50s in some places as departmental vehicles.  I know many people have made, usually a hash of, the 1923 RCH wagons, but this would be a chance for all those lovely P.O. liveries on a correct vehicle for once.

 

Perhaps even the first DJM plastic kit?

[DJM Dave]

.

 

Possibly this has been asked before, maybe not, but what is "DJM Dave's" wish list - what are his interests ?

Hi mate,

 

If it's in general you mean that's easy,

Reading. I like military books, especially involving aircraft or submarines

Music, varied, from Muse, to Dvorak and 70's pop to Big band

Cinema, love popcorn movies, turn up and switch off sort of thing.

I like to travel, and my car had 7000 miles on it since March, including a 2 day return trip to Lossiemouth.

Photography is big on my list, both railways, and aircraft and I will attempt anything arty just to see if I can do it.

 

If it's railways,

I wish I say the MSW when it was properly open as I only saw the 76's live stabled at Wath one foggy morning about 18 months before the line closed.

I'd have loved to have seen the hydraulics on the western too, and I think I prefer that nowadays.

Miss the hum of a Deltic at full chat though.

I try and give sheds a miss, as I think them soulless, and prefer old school loco's, 20,33,37,47,50,56 and 60 are my bag.

Steam? I do like everything, but like the ruggedness of East and West German steam having been lucky enough to see both live when they actually ran and not as museum pieces.

Having stood on the footplate of a couple of big boys, they are immense, and I'd like to have seen one at full chat ahead a long freight.

I do rather like light rail, and try and travel on a team system whenever in Europe, recently travelling on the Riga system.

 

Wish list? Easy. Time travel with a digital camera, back to the 50's and 60's railways.

 

Hope this helps throw some light over my mystical figure lol

Cheers

Dave

[Allegheny1600]

the ruggedness of East and West German steam

 

Clearly, you are a man with exquisite taste!

Especially the E. German Reko Lok's!

Unfortunately I only ever saw one working for a real living (that in Yugoslavia) but love all the red & blacks.

Cheers,

John E.

[Focalplane]

Having ridden behind the UP Challenger 3985 with 16 cars/coaches I say amen to the Big Boys (please use caps!) and look forward to seeing the one being restored in action in about 5 years time.  The Rivarossi HO models of both Challenger and Big Boy are really quite good.

[Clearwater]

I'd still like to see more carriages. Per the popular (!) North Norfolk railway accuracy thread , I'd love to see a quad art set. It would be then MY decision which inappropriate loco to run it with!

 

 

I'd also like to see a rtr silver jubilee set. Possibly tweaked to be five cars to fit an average layout but appreciate that requires some compromise

[AngusDe]

So, a state of the art Big Boy in 00 it is then??....

 

 

Angus

[YesTor]

On the wishlist subject, and considering that a Class 59 is already in the pipeline, then how about an all-singing, all-dancing Class 66? 

 

After all, the Bachmann model, while good with regard to shape and general appearance, has in my opinion been looking a tad "Railroad" in the detail department for some time now.  Surely the most common piece of motive power on the network deserves a top-notch model similar to the proposed spec of the 59 - etched grilles and detail, along with a good representation of the mass of sole-bar pipework (something the Bachmann model severely lacks) would surely be welcomed?

 

I approached Bachmann (Denis Lovett) a while ago at one of the shows, enquiring on the possibility of updating their current spec 66, who frankly seemed quite alarmed that their 66 could be considered to be "lacking in detail", claiming that there "wasn't really any detail on the prototype anyway!!  Our model is fine!"  Case closed was the tone, in fact!

 

Sure, I know the argument will be that Bachmann currently hold the market with regard to the 66, but with the widespread appeal of the type in model form and the vast array of liveries, maybe there is sufficient space in the market for another manufacturer to produce a better model?  A similar comparison would be the Class 47 & 37, where of course each type is produced by several manufacturers with seeming success.

 

I know for sure I'd be up for around thirty, over time, of a highly detailed variant.  Personally, I still need a few more in various liveries, some of which are already available via Bachmann.  However, with current prices the standard Bachmann model seems to retail at just under £100, while the limited editions are around the £125 - £135 mark; and my sentiment is that while I am indeed prepared to pay those kind of prices for a finely detailed model, I'm no longer prepared to spend that kind of dollar on the current (ten year old plus?) and in my opinion, tired-looking Bachmann offering.

 

With such a popular and unavoidable prototype in the current scene, I'd guess there's more people out there who'd want more than one apiece...

Edited July 12, 2015 by darkjunglemung

[No Decorum]

I'd say that's far too risky, especially for Dave. Sorry, but I think I'm with Denis Lovett on this one. I'm happy with my three.

[norfolkchinaclay]

On the wishlist subject, and considering that a Class 59 is already in the pipeline, then how about an all-singing, all-dancing Class 66? 

 

After all, the Bachmann model, while good with regard to shape and general appearance, has in my opinion been looking a tad "Railroad" in the detail department for some time now.  Surely the most common piece of motive power on the network deserves a top-notch model similar to the proposed spec of the 59 - etched grilles and detail, along with a good representation of the mass of sole-bar pipework (something the Bachmann model severely lacks) would surely be welcomed?

 

I approached Bachmann (Denis Lovett) a while ago at one of the shows, enquiring on the possibility of updating their current spec 66, who frankly seemed quite alarmed that their 66 could be considered to be "lacking in detail", claiming that there "wasn't really any detail on the prototype anyway!!  Our model is fine!"  Case closed was the tone, in fact!

 

Sure, I know the argument will be that Bachmann currently hold the market with regard to the 66, but with the widespread appeal of the type in model form and the vast array of liveries, maybe there is sufficient space in the market for another manufacturer to produce a better model?  A similar comparison would be the Class 47 & 37, where of course each type is produced by several manufacturers with seeming success.

 

I know for sure I'd be up for around thirty, over time, of a highly detailed variant.  Personally, I still need a few more in various liveries, some of which are already available via Bachmann.  However, with current prices the standard Bachmann model seems to retail at just under £100, while the limited editions are around the £125 - £135 mark; and my sentiment is that while I am indeed prepared to pay those kind of prices for a finely detailed model, I'm no longer prepared to spend that kind of dollar on the current (ten year old plus?) and in my opinion, tired-looking Bachmann offering.

 

With such a popular and unavoidable prototype in the current scene, I'd guess there's more people out there who'd want more than one apiece...

 

I'm still at a loss as to why manufacturers do not produce at least one or two models in liveries to be seen on the current network per year, although Hornby has made an effort this year with 67016/67024. Hoping they do the same with the 60 now they have done some "sector" period models, I need a DBS one!I'd like a few 66's myself but need more choice of EWS, DRS and GBRF in particular than is available now (with correct light clusters please).

I'd love someone to do the two London Underground map class 66's - haven't seen these as available as a custom respray yet.

Edited July 13, 2015 by norfolkchinaclay

[Guy Rixon]

It would be nice to have, in view of the many pre-grouping locos now available, a definitive 1907 RCH goods wagon. 

 

Presumably you mean the 10-ton mineral wagon to the RCH's spec c. 1907? If so, then I second that.

 

For me, "definitive" would mean that the body was the right length and width; that the exterior detail was accurate for one of the major wagon-works; that the interior was fully modelled with proper planks, ironwork and bottom doors; that it was available in end-door and no-end-door variants; and that a range of pre-printed liveries was available, either from the original manufacturer or from a 3rd-party. I'm less worried about the running gear as I'd be replacing that anyway.

 

If the wagon was good on the outside but one still had to model the interior, it would be less attractive as we can already get such wagons as kits from POWsides. If it was accurately detailed inside and out but the livery had to be done as transfers, then that also would be less attractive as we can already that from Cambrian.

[YesTor]

Sorry, but I think I'm with Denis Lovett on this one. I'm happy with my three.

 

Sure, the Bachmann 66 is "good", but it ain't "great".  Detail-wise its nowhere near in the same league as for example the Hornby 60 which is probably of similar age in model form?  Then compare with some of the latest releases from manufacturers such as the Dapol 73, and I'd guess the forthcoming DJM Class 71, and my feeling is that in 2015 it could be a whole lot better. 

 

Okay, the basic shape is fine, and possibly the best feature of the Bachmann 66 is the cab, which seems pretty much perfect in shape and capturing the overall look and feel of a "shed", and the glazing etc is really very good. 

 

However, there are few niggles in my opinion.  The main one being that the body moulding is less fine than it could be:

1. The rainstrips above the cab doors are very heavily moulded, when in reality they are quite sharp and fine. 

    

2. The same goes for the awful moulded shipping anchors below the bufferbeams (again heavily moulded and very 'rounded' looking, and of course completely lacking any holes). 

    

3. Not to mention the very noticeable joint between the body and underframe at the cab ends. 

    

4. Absolutely no representation of the wealth of piping and rigging etc at solebar level -  a fundamental feature of the prototype surely?

    

5. Same again with the bogies and no representation of the dampers - again one of the most noticeable features of the prototype.

    

6. Solid/moulded bodyside grilles - again where the see-through effect of the prototype (not dissimilar to the Horny 60) is totally ignored.

    

7. Bogies which usually have footsteps glued on at bizarre angles.

    

8. Very basic underframe and fuel tank area.  No representation of sand pipes etc - again another very obvious feature.

 

Those features alone, while small details to some maybe, contribute to giving the model a toy like appearance, and not really one that I'd consider to be worth the £135.00 price tag that it now seems to claim...

 

So in summary, a tired looking model of the most popular prototype in existence on today's rail network.  Surely a prime contender for someone to improve upon...?

Edited July 14, 2015 by darkjunglemung

[Holmesfeldian]

All I want is a 4mm Metrovick Co-Bo with the correct 'as-built' windows - perhaps just a body shell could be possible 

[Dunsignalling]

Sure, the Bachmann 66 is "good", but it ain't "great".  Detail-wise its nowhere near in the same league as for example the Hornby 60 which is probably of similar age in model form?  Then compare with some of the latest releases from manufacturers such as the Dapol 73, and I'd guess the forthcoming DJM Class 71, and my feeling is that in 2015 it could be a whole lot better. 

 

Okay, the basic shape is fine, and possibly the best feature of the Bachmann 66 is the cab, which seems pretty much perfect in shape and capturing the overall look and feel of a "shed", and the glazing etc is really very good. 

 

However, there are few niggles in my opinion.  The main one being that the body moulding is less fine than it could be:

1. The rainstrips above the cab doors are very heavily moulded, when in reality they are quite sharp and fine. 

    

2. The same goes for the awful moulded shipping anchors below the bufferbeams (again heavily moulded and very 'rounded' looking, and of course completely lacking any holes). 

    

3. Not to mention the very noticeable joint between the body and underframe at the cab ends. 

    

4. Absolutely no representation of the wealth of piping and rigging etc at solebar level -  a fundamental feature of the prototype surely?

    

5. Same again with the bogies and no representation of the dampers - again one of the most noticeable features of the prototype.

    

6. Solid/moulded bodyside grilles - again where the see-through effect of the prototype (not dissimilar to the Horny 60) is totally ignored.

    

7. Bogies which usually have footsteps glued on at bizarre angles.

    

8. Very basic underframe and fuel tank area.  No representation of sand pipes etc - again another very obvious feature.

 

Those features alone, while small details to some maybe, contribute to giving the model a toy like appearance, and not really one that I'd consider to be worth the £135.00 price tag that it now seems to claim...

 

So in summary, a tired looking model of the most popular prototype in existence on today's rail network.  Surely a prime contender for someone to improve upon...?

Bachmann's tooling costs should have been covered by now and a superior competitor developed from scratch today would probably hit the shops at £30 or so more than theirs.

 

To launch such a model at a premium price up against one that you acknowledge isn't "bad" would be risky; would enough people think it worth the extra? Would anybody "trade-up" from their existing models? Pricing it close to Bachmann's would generate insufficient profits to invest in the next model and those are factors that even established players have to consider.

 

The other problem is that all your criticisms, apart from No.3 (and possibly No.5), are items which could justifiably be placed into the category of "super-detailing", an activity which many D&E modellers relish and are highly competent at. Added/amended details in metal will also survive the rigours of layout/exhibition running better than anything that can be produced in plastic.

 

If a "Better Shed" is such an attractive proposition, why aren't Heljan or Hornby doing it? Maybe they will, in time. Consider the decade of ear-bending that it took to get Hornby to announce a better "King".

 

One thing is pretty certain; it would not be a prudent investment for a new entrant to the industry. 

 

John

Edited July 14, 2015 by Dunsignalling

[Fireline]

I'm still at a loss as to why manufacturers do not produce at least one or two models in liveries to be seen on the current network per year..

 

Licences. Next?

Edited July 14, 2015 by Fireline

[DougN]

I'm hoping that the Q6 will be such a big seller that this has to be a logical potential choice. I'd personally love it to be a J27 but suspect rather than another freighter a passenger or MT engine like a B16 or J21 would probably be a more likely choice? Either way I'd expect such a model to be a good seller.

I would like to see some interesting mould engineering to pick up the J24 as well splashes, cab fronts and wheel base varys between the 2 but they are the same tenders, boilers, boiler fittings. So once one is figured out the other is also. I too would dearly love these to come out in RTR. It would make a mess of my kit building efforts though.... As I have thought before people are looking to release loco's that I wanted and have purchased and mostly built! So these include the Q6, J21, J24, J26/J27 (building another one of these at the moment!) G5, and a D20 down the list! Add to this a B16 and that would cover all the main NER loco's that people like.

[No Decorum]

Sure, the Bachmann 66 is "good", but it ain't "great".  Detail-wise its nowhere near in the same league as for example the Hornby 60 which is probably of similar age in model form?  Then compare with some of the latest releases from manufacturers such as the Dapol 73, and I'd guess the forthcoming DJM Class 71, and my feeling is that in 2015 it could be a whole lot better. 

 

Okay, the basic shape is fine, and possibly the best feature of the Bachmann 66 is the cab, which seems pretty much perfect in shape and capturing the overall look and feel of a "shed", and the glazing etc is really very good. 

 

However, there are few niggles in my opinion.  The main one being that the body moulding is less fine than it could be:

1. The rainstrips above the cab doors are very heavily moulded, when in reality they are quite sharp and fine. 

    

2. The same goes for the awful moulded shipping anchors below the bufferbeams (again heavily moulded and very 'rounded' looking, and of course completely lacking any holes). 

    

3. Not to mention the very noticeable joint between the body and underframe at the cab ends. 

    

4. Absolutely no representation of the wealth of piping and rigging etc at solebar level -  a fundamental feature of the prototype surely?

    

5. Same again with the bogies and no representation of the dampers - again one of the most noticeable features of the prototype.

    

6. Solid/moulded bodyside grilles - again where the see-through effect of the prototype (not dissimilar to the Horny 60) is totally ignored.

    

7. Bogies which usually have footsteps glued on at bizarre angles.

    

8. Very basic underframe and fuel tank area.  No representation of sand pipes etc - again another very obvious feature.

 

Those features alone, while small details to some maybe, contribute to giving the model a toy like appearance, and not really one that I'd consider to be worth the £135.00 price tag that it now seems to claim...

 

So in summary, a tired looking model of the most popular prototype in existence on today's rail network.  Surely a prime contender for someone to improve upon...?

Whilst still content with Bachmann's 66s, I do concede that, to my eyes, the most obvious feature of the prototype which isn't modelled is the rotating axlebox covers.

[Raised On Steam]

I would like to see some interesting mould engineering to pick up the J24 as well splashes, cab fronts and wheel base varys between the 2 but they are the same tenders, boilers, boiler fittings. So once one is figured out the other is also. I too would dearly love these to come out in RTR. It would make a mess of my kit building efforts though.... As I have thought before people are looking to release loco's that I wanted and have purchased and mostly built! So these include the Q6, J21, J24, J26/J27 (building another one of these at the moment!) G5, and a D20 down the list! Add to this a B16 and that would cover all the main NER loco's that people like.

 

In addition there's the preserved example tie-in angle being currently utilised by other manufacturers. As well as 63395 living and breathing in preservation there's the NELPG J27, my old friend the J21(hopefully one day) and in the future the new G5. All possible candidates.

Plus of course although they're all fairly scruffy anonymous workhorses compared to the more glamorous big stars, what such engines have in their favour is the potential for longevity. They're all from numerous, long lasting classes - models of which could potentially be bought in numbers rather than just a single example. Think of how many liveries each one would have carried over the decades. I'm sure repeat sales of the DJM Q6 (not to mention the J94) will back this up.

Of course this doesn't just apply to NER engines. I mention them because I'm biased. I love 'em ha ha.

[Raised On Steam]

Hi mate,

 

If it's in general you mean that's easy,

Reading. I like military books, especially involving aircraft or submarines

Music, varied, from Muse, to Dvorak and 70's pop to Big band

Cinema, love popcorn movies, turn up and switch off sort of thing.

I like to travel, and my car had 7000 miles on it since March, including a 2 day return trip to Lossiemouth.

Photography is big on my list, both railways, and aircraft and I will attempt anything arty just to see if I can do it.

 

If it's railways,

I wish I say the MSW when it was properly open as I only saw the 76's live stabled at Wath one foggy morning about 18 months before the line closed.

I'd have loved to have seen the hydraulics on the western too, and I think I prefer that nowadays.

Miss the hum of a Deltic at full chat though.

I try and give sheds a miss, as I think them soulless, and prefer old school loco's, 20,33,37,47,50,56 and 60 are my bag.

Steam? I do like everything, but like the ruggedness of East and West German steam having been lucky enough to see both live when they actually ran and not as museum pieces.

Having stood on the footplate of a couple of big boys, they are immense, and I'd like to have seen one at full chat ahead a long freight.

I do rather like light rail, and try and travel on a team system whenever in Europe, recently travelling on the Riga system.

 

Wish list? Easy. Time travel with a digital camera, back to the 50's and 60's railways.

 

Hope this helps throw some light over my mystical figure lol

Cheers

Dave

 

Submarines eh?

Have you read any of the books on the Thetis? Particularly this one:

 

[NHY 581]

The submarine lost twice with the loss of its crew on both occasions.....

 

 

Rob

[DJM Dave]

Didn't the Hunley suffer the same fate' the second time right after it successfully used what is regarded as the first use of a torpedo?

[NHY 581]

It appears the Hunley sank itself three times.

 

The first was its maiden voyage, the second it took its designer with it. The third time was its first time in combat and it is suggested that it may have been twenty feet from the target when the torpedo was launched.......leading to the third sinking.

 

Not good.

 

Rob

[Mr chapman]

Sure, the Bachmann 66 is "good", but it ain't "great".  Detail-wise its nowhere near in the same league as for example the Hornby 60 which is probably of similar age in model form?  Then compare with some of the latest releases from manufacturers such as the Dapol 73, and I'd guess the forthcoming DJM Class 71, and my feeling is that in 2015 it could be a whole lot better. 

 

Okay, the basic shape is fine, and possibly the best feature of the Bachmann 66 is the cab, which seems pretty much perfect in shape and capturing the overall look and feel of a "shed", and the glazing etc is really very good. 

 

However, there are few niggles in my opinion.  The main one being that the body moulding is less fine than it could be:

 

• The rainstrips above the cab doors are very heavily moulded, when in reality they are quite sharp and fine. 

   

• The same goes for the awful moulded shipping anchors below the bufferbeams (again heavily moulded and very 'rounded' looking, and of course completely lacking any holes). 

   

• Not to mention the very noticeable joint between the body and underframe at the cab ends. 

   

• Absolutely no representation of the wealth of piping and rigging etc at solebar level -  a fundamental feature of the prototype surely?

   

• Same again with the bogies and no representation of the dampers - again one of the most noticeable features of the prototype.

   

• Solid/moulded bodyside grilles - again where the see-through effect of the prototype (not dissimilar to the Horny 60) is totally ignored.

   

• Bogies which usually have footsteps glued on at bizarre angles.

   

• Very basic underframe and fuel tank area.  No representation of sand pipes etc - again another very obvious feature.

 

Those features alone, while small details to some maybe, contribute to giving the model a toy like appearance, and not really one that I'd consider to be worth the £135.00 price tag that it now seems to claim...

 

So in summary, a tired looking model of the most popular prototype in existence on today's rail network.  Surely a prime contender for someone to improve upon...?

Time to get your tools out and do some modellings then

[farren]

When a model is released obvious tooling costs design etc are taken into account. But is this just put on the new model or dose it get spread over the full range? Would a single run of the model pay this of.

Edited July 16, 2015 by farren

[Raised On Steam]

The submarine lost twice with the loss of its crew on both occasions.....

 

 

Rob

 

Including my great uncle Stan who was a sparky onboard the second time it sank renamed Thunderbolt. That's why I mentioned it initially. He's in the crew pic in the book.

Apparently the captain of Thunderbolt was nicknamed 'Lucky' as he'd survived many near misses. It's written that 'his luck ran out the day he took command of Thunderbolt……….'

[Gerald Henriksen]

When a model is released obvious tooling costs design etc are taken into account. But is this just put on the new model or dose it get spread over the full range? Would a single run of the model pay this of.

 

I have no direct experience, however.

 

In general the goal with any model will be to cover the tooling/production costs as well as having a profit (so that the company can survive and invest into future products) on the first run of a model.  There will be no guarantee of enough demand to count on a second run of models.

 

Consider that the costs of tooling up a new model are significant and few operations will be able to carry that expense on the books any longer than necessary.

 

There are of course exceptions, where an established company with enough cash flow may decide to either gamble on making a model that may not succeed in terms of sales, or in at least one (not DJM case) the model was so important to the owner that they were willing to accept losing money on it - though I think in the end sales may have been enough to prevent a loss.

 

Of course, too many money losing models and you no longer have the cash flow to finance any models, so it is safe to assume that a model will pay off its tooling costs on the first run.