DJM wish list thread

[coachmann]

I may as well thrown in my small contribution with a   GWR 'Manor'.....  

[BG John]

GWR Railmotor in original livery, and easily convertible to EM. Like the planned Kernow one, but available much sooner, before I no longer have a need for it!! Or a matchboard sided one now, and the Kernow one later!

[DJM Dave]

_{I would like to see some ac electric loco's and units done, class 81,82,83,84 and class 304,305,308,309 and class 313,314,315.}

One day I'll tell you all just how close you came to a model of a Juniper in all its guises, and in OO and N gauge too!

[Edwardian]

GWR Railmotor in original livery, and easily convertible to EM. Like the planned Kernow one, but available much sooner, before I no longer have a need for it!! Or a matchboard sided one now, and the Kernow one later!

 

I confess, I have given up with Wish-lists as the official ones seldom distinguish between different versions and liveries of the subjects and experience is teaching me that a vote for "Loco X" merely means "Loco X in BR and, if you're lucky, late-Grouping guise".  It matters not that the subject loco might have been introduced pre-WW1 or in the reign of Queen Victoria!

 

I have been bitterly disappointed concerning a number of releases for which tooling variants for earlier incarnations have not been produced or planned for; Hornby T9, Class 700, Adams Radial, Hattons 14XX, Heljan 'Tango', Kernow O2 and Gate Stock, Hornby 'J15', etc, etc.  I have to accept that mine is a minority complaint, but, then, I remain of the view that the popularity of earlier periods is a chicken and egg affair.  So long as it is effectively inaccessible to new entrants or to any but those who have acquired fairly advanced skills, it will be less popular than it otherwise might be! 

 

Just two examples show what I mean. I voted for LSWR stock and we got a SR re-build from 1936 (and not one than can be practically back-dated, by all accounts). Recently I was utterly incredulous when it was revealed that the 'as built' 4800 was not to be produced, as I had not for a moment considered that the typical pre-War appearance of the class would be neglected, so, what a waste of a wish-list vote that was! 

 

I am now convinced that this will be true of any pre-Grouping  and most Grouping designs canvassed, so I shall not waste my time.  A vote for a certain prototype is not a vote for a broader range of period, rather, it merely serves to reinforce the current monomaniacal trend for anything that ran on the Nationalised system plus a few pointless 'as preserved' releases.

 

The Railmotor would be a glorious exception, but one that merely high-lights the deliberate neglect of a comparable LSWR release - a c.1914 O2 and Gate Stock, and the long lacuna between the demise of the GW Railmotors and a war-time/post-war GW auto-train.  Patchy, erratic and illogical doesn't begin to describe the 'coverage' of RTR 'ranges' pre-1950s.

 

Yes, they can't do everything.  But they could do more.

 

The missed opportunity to produce the 4800 was the final straw for me; a much-loved prototype, the decision pretty much guarantees no 1932-39 version for at least a generation.

 

There are other exceptions, but my shopping list has withered in the face of limited-late-period releases.  Aside from the Hatton King, which I am very much looking forward to, my pre-order list is now down to 1 Heljan 009 L&B locomotive and 1 Hornby Peckett because, time after time, a potentially useful release has excluded itself by representing only a limited, late condition, period.  It is saving me a small fortune!   

 

I should add that I do conversions and I do believe in developing my skills as a modeller.  Although it's no easy thing to take a £125 model and attack in a warranty-invalidating conversion, eventually I might purchase some of the releases that I have hitherto rejected, where I think they can be successfully back-dated, but these become projects, and must join a very long back-log of projects, so no immediate purchase and far fewer overall purchases will result.

[BG John]

I should add that I do conversions and I do believe in developing my skills as a modeller.  Although it's no easy thing to take a £125 model and attack in a warranty-invalidating conversion, eventually I might purchase some of the releases that I have hitherto rejected, where I think they can be successfully back-dated, but these become projects, and must join a very long back-log of projects, so no immediate purchase and far fewer overall purchases will result.

I was waiting for some glue to dry, so was at a loose end for a few minutes! At least my current RTR bashing projects are based on sub £20 (or sub £10 body only) conversions of "pre-loved" Hornby 2721 Panniers, and such horrors as Hornby Smokey Joes when I get onto the narrow gauge ones!

[Edwardian]

I was waiting for some glue to dry, so was at a loose end for a few minutes! At least my current RTR bashing projects are based on sub £20 (or sub £10 body only) conversions of "pre-loved" Hornby 2721 Panniers, and such horrors as Hornby Smokey Joes when I get onto the narrow gauge ones!

 

John, that's very much the territory I'm in at the moment - Hornby 14XX, Electrotren 0-6-0, Bachmann Pannier, and Hornby Terrier.  Kind readers have pointed out that a L&Y 2-4-2T would make a good basis for a conversion, but that is a whole new price bracket, which is why I haven't sawn into a J15 yet, even though their prices have come down somewhat!

 

By the same token, it's one thing cutting up Triang clerestories, quite another to contemplate replacing the ends of LSWR Gate Stock at £100 a set!

[gelboy45]

Class 71 in N scale please.

 

Gerry

[A Murphy]

if it's sales your after, surely a Saint is going to sell in appreciable numbers?

[BG John]

John, that's very much the territory I'm in at the moment - Hornby 14XX, Electrotren 0-6-0, Bachmann Pannier, and Hornby Terrier.  Kind readers have pointed out that a L&Y 2-4-2T would make a good basis for a conversion, but that is a whole new price bracket, which is why I haven't sawn into a J15 yet, even though their prices have come down somewhat!

 

By the same token, it's one thing cutting up Triang clerestories, quite another to contemplate replacing the ends of LSWR Gate Stock at £100 a set!

Which is one of the things that puts me off modern RTR. The extra detail is very nice, but I'm almost scared to touch the few I've got in case I break something. I'd much rather have dimensionally accurate but less detailed models at a lower price. It would provide rugged locos that stand handling on working layouts, and a market for small suppliers producing detailing parts, probably out of stronger materials. If the price was lower I might be tempted to buy more, especially if I could then afford to hack them into something else.

[Blobrick]

_{I would like to see some ac electric loco's and units done, class 81,82,83,84 and class 304,305,308,309 and class 313,314,315.}

 Hey that's my dream list !! However l can only agree 100%

 

"More AC Traction" please Dave?

 

Bob C

[farren]

Anyone think a MR class 990 might sell.

[Edwardian]

Which is one of the things that puts me off modern RTR. The extra detail is very nice, but I'm almost scared to touch the few I've got in case I break something. I'd much rather have dimensionally accurate but less detailed models at a lower price. It would provide rugged locos that stand handling on working layouts, and a market for small suppliers producing detailing parts, probably out of stronger materials. If the price was lower I might be tempted to buy more, especially if I could then afford to hack them into something else.

 

There is much in what you say.  Anyone sticking his head above the parapet and advocating earlier period RTR is apt to face certain, by now fairly familiar objections, usually amounting to a view that RTR has no business catering for earlier periods and I have no business expecting it to.  I will add here that my expectations are unobjectionably low at present!  I cannot help feeling that many of the people who do tell me to learn to build kits or modify RTR might model the periods currently catered for so well by RTR and do not face the reality of the time it takes to master and then apply the necessary skills to produce a decent amount of stock for a layout when simple unpacking another rake of Mk Is is not an option!  

 

Time, health and wealth permitting I fully intend to progress my modelling skills.  I have committed to some hand-built track on my first ever layout, all my buildings are scratch-built so far, and I am slowly progressing RTR loco conversions and at the planning stage for kit and scratch-built rolling stock.  In fact, now I come to think of it, the Oxford North British open is the only potential RTR rolling stock item.  So, it's not that I am not prepared to make the effort!

 

By the same token, anyone who produces a RTR loco or rake of coaches makes life easier and has my gratitude.  I also think that modern RTR is almost too advanced, detailed, delicate and expensive for bodging, making it all the more important for the manufacturers to make the most of the subject and offer a few more variants.

 

Bonkers decisions like pre-WW1 GW Railmotor but no LSWR Gate-stock & O2, or, pre-War King and Collett coaches but no pre-War 4800, and Umber E4 but no Umber H2 just make my head unscrew and clatter to the floor! 

[cctransuk]

There is much in what you say.  Anyone sticking his head above the parapet and advocating earlier period RTR is apt to face certain, by now fairly familiar objections, usually amounting to a view that RTR has no business catering for earlier periods and I have no business expecting it to.  I will add here that my expectations are unobjectionably low at present!  I cannot help feeling that many of the people who do tell me to learn to build kits or modify RTR might model the periods currently catered for so well by RTR and do not face the reality of the time it takes to master and then apply the necessary skills to produce a decent amount of stock for a layout when simple unpacking another rake of Mk Is is not an option!  

 

Time, health and wealth permitting I fully intend to progress my modelling skills.  I have committed to some hand-built track on my first ever layout, all my buildings are scratch-built so far, and I am slowly progressing RTR loco conversions and at the planning stage for kit and scratch-built rolling stock.  In fact, now I come to think of it, the Oxford North British open is the only potential RTR rolling stock item.  So, it's not that I am not prepared to make the effort!

 

By the same token, anyone who produces a RTR loco or rake of coaches makes life easier and has my gratitude.  I also think that modern RTR is almost too advanced, detailed, delicate and expensive for bodging, making it all the more important for the manufacturers to make the most of the subject and offer a few more variants.

 

Bonkers decisions like pre-WW1 GW Railmotor but no LSWR Gate-stock & O2, or, pre-War King and Collett coaches but no pre-War 4800, and Umber E4 but no Umber H2 just make my head unscrew and clatter to the floor! 

 

Not knowing your age profile I am at a disadvantage in trying to respond to your points.

 

However, I can tell you that I started modelling some sixty years ago, and only now do I feel fully competent to tackle the construction of a layout - buildings, scenery, track and stock - depicting a relatively mainstream subject such as Evercreech Junction, on the S&DJR, in the early 1960s. As it is, I have severe reservations as to the practicality of completing the necessary loft conversion and layout building within the rest of my lifetime.

 

With such a popular modelling period, I have at least managed to acquire enough - (to much?) - stock to operate the nacent model; either from modified RTR, kit or scratchbuilt sources; (though the 'TO DO' pile of kits never seems to significantly diminish).

 

My point? Well depending on the percentage of your projected lifetime remaining to you, the choice of modelling period can be critical.

 

If you are in the flower of youth, you still have the time remaining to you to develop the skills to produce the stock that you will need to portray the - and I'm guessing here - Edwardian period.

 

If, on the other hand you are becoming increasingly conscious of your mortality - as I am - you may well be wise to reassess the scope of your modelling ambitions, vis-a-vis the time involved in acquiring the skills that you are going to need to bring such a minority plan to fruition.

 

Don't fool yourself that the RTR trade is going to come rushing to your aid. They'll produce your yearned-for earlier versions of their later period subjects if they can do so at minimal additional expense, but don't expect them to invest heavily in expensive alternative slides for their moulding tools, just to satisfy what you have to accept is a very restricted demand.

 

Don't get me wrong - I admire the offbeat models that I come across - but a dose of reality is always good for tempering our rather more exotic expectations.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited August 22, 2016 by cctransuk

[Edwardian]

Not knowing your age profile I am at a disadvantage in trying to respond to your points.

 

However, I can tell you that I started modelling some sixty years ago, and only now do I feel fully competent to tackle the construction of a layout - buildings, scenery, track and stock - depicting a relatively mainstream subject such as Evercreech Junction, on the S&DJR, in the early 1960s. As it is, I have severe reservations as to the practicality of completing the necessary loft conversion and layout building within the rest of my lifetime.

 

With such a popular modelling period, I have at least managed to acquire enough - (to much?) - stock to operate the nacent model; either from modified RTR, kit or scratchbuilt sources; (though the 'TO DO' pile of kits never seems to significantly diminish).

 

My point? Well depending on the percentage of your projected lifetime remaining to you, the choice of modelling period can be critical.

 

If you are in the flower of youth, you still have the time remaining to you to develop the skills to produce the stock that you will need to portray the - and I'm guessing here - Edwardian period.

 

If, on the other hand you are becoming increasingly conscious of your mortality - as I am - you may well be wise to reassess the scope of your modelling ambitions, vis-a-vis the time involved in acquiring the skills that you are going to need to bring such a minority plan to fruition.

 

Don't fool yourself that the RTR trade is going to come rushing to your aid. They'll produce your yearned-for earlier versions of their later period subjects if they can do so at minimal additional expense, but don't expect them to invest heavily in expensive alternative slides for their moulding tools, just to satisfy what you have to accept is a very restricted demand.

 

Don't get me wrong - I admire the offbeat models that I come across - but a dose of reality is always good for tempering our rather more exotic expectations.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

John,

 

Thanks.  I think the comment "my expectations are unobjectionably low at present!" meets yours concerning RTR coming to my rescue.  It could, but it won't.  I can accept that reality whilst still regretting it.

 

I returned to the hobby in earnest at the end of last year, aged 46.  I am still of an age at which financial, family and work commitments very much hamper modelling, but I did not want to wait until retirement; who knows how long, healthy or affluent a retirement might be? 

 

If I had infinite world enough and time, you could dismiss me as merely impatient, but there is not enough of either for even a portion of the layouts and stock I would like, hence I see RTR, with its high standards, as a great short-cut, but, of course, the apparent paralysis of manufacturers in the face of anything but the Dominant Period and a few convenient spin-offs means that the route of convenience and practicality is not open to me. 

 

What I do not find at all persuasive is the idea is that I should allow practicality to dictate my choice of period.  I did not have a childhood in the '50s and '60s, so the nostalgia thing does not draw me to the Transition Period.  I can view it more objectively and find that, compared with other, earlier, periods, it's rather dull. It is also ubiquitous, and, really, I feel a change would be as good as a rest!  The nostalgia cycle is currently starting to favour the blue diesel era, but, as a child, I did not find the Age of the Train remotely inspiring and I find that it has not become any more interesting in retrospect.

 

What fascinates me is the ability to explore different places, periods and railway equipment that are beyond recall and otherwise only live in black and white photographs, and to do so through the medium of modelling.

 

So, I will have a choice between a biggish layout with lots of high quality RTR trains set in a period that has no interest for me, or something far more modest that will progress slowly and struggle to reflect current standards but will at least represent a subject that does interest me.     

 

Obviously, I choose the latter.  I cannot, thus, complain if that places me in a minority and manufacturers do not rally round to produce some of the models that I want.  As I have said, on recent evidence, my expectations of RTR manufacturers in this regard are very, very, low.

 

But, there is a more general point that modellers' interest in a period to a significant extent depends upon accessibility, which depends upon adequate trade support.  For instance, what is the point of buying Bachmann's umber E4 when there is no prospect of ever having anything to go with it?  l think there is potential for the support of a wider period.  We have plenty of locomotives now that could, with the appropriate livery and tooling options, allow a far better coverage of the c.1900-1935 period than we currently enjoy.  Such releases would promote better sales of the models that do fall into this period, allowing more layouts to be more easily set in earlier periods. Fostering interest in a wider period might help sell those locomotives after the generational demand for their BR incarnations inevitably tails off.  So, every time a decision is made to limit the potential coverage of a new release, I am bound to regard it as regrettable, and as a missed opportunity.    

[J C Fenton]

Well, I would have voted for a GER T26 (LNER E4), and in many ways it is the natural companion for Hornby J15 and Claud.

 

I say "I would" vote for it, but if Edwardian is right, and I suspect he is, there is no way we'd ever get a GER T26, we'd just get an LNER and ex-LNER E4.  Another wasted opportunity, so, on the whole, I'd prefer manufacturers not to bother!!!! 

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong - I admire the offbeat models that I come across - but a dose of reality is always good for tempering our rather more exotic expectations.

 

 

 

The problem with that is that the "offbeat" equals variety and summat a darn sight more interesting than the "reality" of endless steam outline layouts built to the mono-period 

[Steven B]

Dave,

 

Given that the Cround Funded model appears to have worked well for the OO gauge Class 71, would you consider it for your other outstanding models? I.e. N Gauge Clayton, Baby Deltic, J94 and the O Gauge versions of the Baby Deltic and J94?

 

Happy modelling.

 

Steven B.

[DJM Dave]

It might be worth doing for the O gauge, but as things are starting to happen now cash flow wish now the J94 is coming on stream I don't see any need for the q7, 23 or J94 in N as they are all pointed, in that order, to go into the tool room.

 

Indeed if brexit hadn't hit exchange rates so badly the 17 would be here for next weekend. :-(

As it is it needs more cash thrown at it to get over the finish line due to the devaluation of the U.K.£ against the HK$

 

Was 13 to the pound, now 10.3 to the pound, so you can see how it's hit projects and not just for me I'm sure.

 

Cheers

Dave

[coachmann]

I'm in the old age bracket and i model mid 1950's BR. So I am fortunate in that RTR supplies much of my needs and I only have to build coaches ~ which I would for any period i model. But, I could just as easily have chosen to model the early LMS period or the 1930's and would quite simply have got on with it. In other words, RTR has no bearing on what I do. It is simply a useful market to look at to see what could be of use to me, as it always has been. In the 1960's I used Triang and Hornby Dublo chassis and re-wheeled them to suit the body i intended building. I had built many of the loco I had always fancied by the age of 23, all from the then new Plastikard. It can be done today by anyone who fancies cutting out shapes to scale drawings, bending and welding them together with Mekpak or whatever. 

 

RTR has already produced locos and coaches that no one would have expected only a few years ago. But to get carried away expecting the earth is to ignore realities, in my view. And before anyone asks why I don't build a GWR 'Manor', I can't be a$$ed these days so I upgraded my route to red and bought 'Halls' as a workaround.....

Edited August 23, 2016 by coachmann

[wombatofludham]

_{I would like to see some ac electric loco's and units done, class 81,82,83,84 and class 304,305,308,309 and class 313,314,315.}

 

I must admit a 310/312 would go down very well, although it has the disadvantage of needing at least five different toolings for the carriages not including the variations for the different front ends, so I suspect an RTR 310-312 is off the agenda for the foreseeable...

[cctransuk]

But, there is a more general point that modellers' interest in a period to a significant extent depends upon accessibility, which depends upon adequate trade support.  For instance, what is the point of buying Bachmann's umber E4 when there is no prospect of ever having anything to go with it?

 

But that is the crux of my point - you CAN have something to go with Bachmann's E4 - you'll just have to develop the skills to build such stock from kits.

 

If you sit around waiting for manufacturers to provide all that you need to build in your self-confessed minority era, or bemoaning the fact that they don't, you'll end up with little to show for a lifetime's modelling ambition.

 

Bite the bullet - buy a simple kit and be prepared to make a hash of it. It's the ONLY way to develop the skills that will open up a whole vista of possibilities in your chosen era.

 

If the odd relevant RTR items crops up from time to time, so much the better, but I don't believe that you will EVER be able to bring your plans to fruition using just RTR items.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[BG John]

But that is the crux of my point - you CAN have something to go with Bachmann's E4 - you'll just have to develop the skills to build such stock from kits.

 

If you sit around waiting for manufacturers to provide all that you need to build in your self-confessed minority era, or bemoaning the fact that they don't, you'll end up with little to show for a lifetime's modelling ambition.

 

Bite the bullet - buy a simple kit and be prepared to make a hash of it. It's the ONLY way to develop the skills that will open up a whole vista of possibilities in your chosen era.

 

If the odd relevant RTR items crops up from time to time, so much the better, but I don't believe that you will EVER be able to bring your plans to fruition using just RTR items.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

If no one asks for pre-grouping and other minority interests, there's no hope of getting them. But just maybe by asking it may spark some interest from manufacturers, or people who hadn't thought of it but who might become interested. Say nothing, and we'll get nothing.

 

I'm certainly not waiting, and have RTR bashes, kit bashes, and scratchbuilding planned for the things I want. Then *&%!!$ Dapol go and announce an O gauge GWR 57xx, and screw up all my plans. I'm now starting to think about seeing if I can backdate one to an early 1900s pannier, which starts off a whole new area of 7mm scale modelling, on top of everything else I'm doing!!

[Edwardian]

But that is the crux of my point - you CAN have something to go with Bachmann's E4 - you'll just have to develop the skills to build such stock from kits.

 

If you sit around waiting for manufacturers to provide all that you need to build in your self-confessed minority era, or bemoaning the fact that they don't, you'll end up with little to show for a lifetime's modelling ambition.

 

Bite the bullet - buy a simple kit and be prepared to make a hash of it. It's the ONLY way to develop the skills that will open up a whole vista of possibilities in your chosen era.

 

If the odd relevant RTR items crops up from time to time, so much the better, but I don't believe that you will EVER be able to bring your plans to fruition using just RTR items.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

John,

 

You seem, I assume not wilfully, to have neglected my points with your answers.  I did take the time to explain that I was very much a "doer" in terms of learning the skills etc.

 

I made two points, neither of which I think you address in your answers. 

 

First, it takes a long time to master and apply those skills.  As I suggested, far longer than it takes to unpack a rake of Mark Is.  It follows that adequate trade support of pre and early grouping eras would be of considerable value.  Like BG John, I'm not waiting for RTR to come over the hill like the cavalry to my rescue, but I don't see why I should not also continue to press for better coverage for earlier periods. I think the "build don't ask" argument, which I hear again and again, is long overdue for the dustbin of debate; the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Second, your answer merely confirms the point that pre-Grouping is relatively inaccessible, as it is a hard proposition to new entrants and established modellers alike unless and until you have mastered the skills and applied them over the time it takes to build nearly all the stock you need in addition to building the layout.  If you visited my layout thread, you will see that I have not been discouraged from pursuing an earlier period and am 'DIYing' it, but, oh so slowly.  

 

Now, given the second point, how else, but through additional and 'joined up releases' (i.e. I have loco A that can run with coaches B), can you expect a significant number of modellers to choose an earlier period?  As I say, chicken and egg. 

 

Again, it is not an answer to say, "model the Transition Era in the meantime" if you have little or no interest in that period and it was not what attracted you to railway modelling. 

 

James

 

 

If no one asks for pre-grouping and other minority interests, there's no hope of getting them. But just maybe by asking it may spark some interest from manufacturers, or people who hadn't thought of it but who might become interested. Say nothing, and we'll get nothing.

 

I'm certainly not waiting, and have RTR bashes, kit bashes, and scratchbuilding planned for the things I want. Then *&%!!$ Dapol go and announce an O gauge GWR 57xx, and screw up all my plans. I'm now starting to think about seeing if I can backdate one to an early 1900s pannier, which starts off a whole new area of 7mm scale modelling, on top of everything else I'm doing!!

 

I think that is the right approach, John; get on with it in the meantime, but continue to ask for better support and encourage more modellers to try other periods.

 

I like JC's 'mono-period' tag;  steam outline modelling is 90% mono-period, and there is so much more out there to try. 

[cctransuk]

John,

 

You seem, I assume not wilfully, to have neglected my points with your answers.  I did take the time to explain that I was very much a "doer" in terms of learning the skills etc.

 

I made two points, neither of which I think you address in your answers. 

 

First, it takes a long time to master and apply those skills.  As I suggested, far longer than it takes to unpack a rake of Mark Is.  It follows that adequate trade support of pre and early grouping eras would be of considerable value.  Like BG John, I'm not waiting for RTR to come over the hill like the cavalry to my rescue, but I don't see why I should not also continue to press for better coverage for earlier periods. I think the "build don't ask" argument, which I hear again and again, is long overdue for the dustbin of debate; the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Second, your answer merely confirms the point that pre-Grouping is relatively inaccessible, as it is a hard proposition to new entrants and established modellers alike unless and until you have mastered the skills and applied them over the time it takes to build nearly all the stock you need in addition to building the layout.  If you visited my layout thread, you will see that I have not been discouraged from pursuing an earlier period and am 'DIYing' it, but, oh so slowly.  

 

Now, given the second point, how else, but through additional and 'joined up releases' (i.e. I have loco A that can run with coaches B), can you expect a significant number of modellers to choose an earlier period?  As I say, chicken and egg. 

 

Again, it is not an answer to say, "model the Transition Era in the meantime" if you have little or no interest in that period and it was not what attracted you to railway modelling. 

 

James

 

 

 

I think that is the right approach, John; get on with it in the meantime, but continue to ask for better support and encourage more modellers to try other periods.

 

I like JC's 'mono-period' tag;  steam outline modelling is 90% mono-period, and there is so much more out there to try. 

 

James,

 

I don't disagree with anything you say, except perhaps the suggestion that RTR manufacturers are ever going to set trends as opposed to follow them. Not unreasonable, really; they are in business to invest in fast sellers.

 

What they are doing at the moment is to offer earlier period spin-offs from their 'mono-period' releases, albeit at present only where these can be created by alternative decoration only. If these sell well then they may be encouraged to vary the moulded detail too.

 

The Why buy an E4 when I can't buy matching coaches approach, though, could defeat this tentative entry into the more historical periods.

 

If earlier period modellers are prepared to buy the current limited offerings, and at the same time venture into kit-building for other rolling stock, then they may find in time that there is less need to take to the workbench.

 

On the other hand, if the few current releases are ignored because there's not a compatible range of rolling stock, there is little likelihood of a broader range of historic subjects ever appearing.

 

Regards,

John isherwood.

[Edwardian]

James,

 

I don't disagree with anything you say, except perhaps the suggestion that RTR manufacturers are ever going to set trends as opposed to follow them. Not unreasonable, really; they are in business to invest in fast sellers.

 

What they are doing at the moment is to offer earlier period spin-offs from their 'mono-period' releases, albeit at present only where these can be created by alternative decoration only. If these sell well then they may be encouraged to vary the moulded detail too.

 

The Why buy an E4 when I can't buy matching coaches approach, though, could defeat this tentative entry into the more historical periods.

 

If earlier period modellers are prepared to buy the current limited offerings, and at the same time venture into kit-building for other rolling stock, then they may find in time that there is less need to take to the workbench.

 

On the other hand, if the few current releases are ignored because there's not a compatible range of rolling stock, there is little likelihood of a broader range of historic subjects ever appearing.

 

Regards,

John isherwood.

 

John,

 

I don't find I disagree with what you say, either.

 

For the record, I did buy the umber E4, with the intention of, one day, building coaches for it.  Because I need to master certain skills and then find the time to build the coaches, having first researched them adequately, of course, "one day" is the operative part of the last sentence!  If there were RTR coaches to go with it, my first layout would likely have been LBSC rather than a freelance company in East Anglia!

 

So, here is one example of why there is one less pre-grouping layout 'out there' than there might otherwise have been.  On the plus side, by the time I have provided stock for my first, trial, railway, I ought to be able to tackle most rolling stock subjects, but it will still be a problem finding the time. 

 

Incidentally, no one should sensibly expect to create a pre-Grouping layout entirely from RTR stock, as Transitioners probably can. That is not my aspiration or complaint.  Variety and kit or scratch-built items are, I feel, good things in themselves and they are necessary things to cover an early period subject.  Having said that, if one or two locomotives and rakes out of, say, the half dozen you want to operate your layout with, were available RTR, that would make all the difference.  It would be nice to have something to run while the balance is being built! But, without RTR support, earlier periods will remain necessarily marginalised, and, generally, layouts fewer and more modest.

 

Hence I repeat the idea that it is chicken and egg.  You need rising interest that could become demand combined with the encouragement that is provided by manufacturers' support.  Each supports the other. You cannot say which has to come first. What is clear to me is that manufacturers have not yet 'grown a pair' and seen what can be done.  Why should they?  Well, arguably they shouldn't.  But, if that is to be the attitude, I can only meet it with "why should I support manufacturers who ignore my interests?"  If manufacturers are capable of taking a longer term view, they might consider how to maximise sales and extend the life of products by moving away from steam outline's 90% mono-period support base.   

 

I think you have provided my conclusion for me; "If earlier period modellers are prepared to buy the current limited offerings, and at the same time venture into kit-building for other rolling stock, then they may find in time that there is less need to take to the workbench."

 

I agree, but it follows, for me, that each time a model is released that could be produced so as to represent an earlier period, but is not, it is a shame and a missed opportunity. I do not see that it is wrong to point that out and to call for better RTR representation of other periods.  I see it as consistent with buying releases that do work for earlier periods and building what you need to in the meantime.   

 

My original point in this topic was that wish-lists are a waste of time, unless they are specific enough to signal interest in an earlier variant.  The BRM poll is not, and it is clear that a vote for a pre-Grouping coach or locomotive is unlikely to result in a model in its pre-Grouping condition, unless, of course, it is a locomotive that was not rebuilt after 1923. 

 

If the poll means, or will be taken to mean, vote for a BR condition ex-so and so, that is possibly also OK for late Grouping, it should say so!  It could also allow for the option of voting for early conditions or specific liveries.  How can anyone taking notice of these polls know whether there is or isn't sufficient interest in earlier condition models if no distinction is made?

 

One thing I'll throw into that.  The GW 517 0-4-2T scored very respectably last year.  Not as popular as a new Terrier, but scoring higher than some of the famous National Collection locomotives that might get commissioned by Locomotion/NRM.  I point this out because it is a class that did not see service with the Nationalised railway, so voters must have been pre-war Groupers and/or Pre-Groupers!  You could not dismiss these as votes for mono-period releases. 

 

As the wish-list disguise the true level of interest in earlier periods, it is hard to judge.  It may or may not be sufficient, but little is being done, so far as I can tell, to explore that potential market or to foster interest in earlier periods by those in a position to influence the market.  

 

James

[JSpencer]

John,

 

I don't find I disagree with what you say, either.

 

For the record, I did buy the umber E4, with the intention of, one day, building coaches for it.  Because I need to master certain skills and then find the time to build the coaches, having first researched them adequately, of course, "one day" is the operative part of the last sentence!  If there were RTR coaches to go with it, my first layout would likely have been LBSC rather than a freelance company in East Anglia!

 

So, here is one example of why there is one less pre-grouping layout 'out there' than there might otherwise have been.  On the plus side, by the time I have provided stock for my first, trial, railway, I ought to be able to tackle most rolling stock subjects, but it will still be a problem finding the time. 

 

Incidentally, no one should sensibly expect to create a pre-Grouping layout entirely from RTR stock, as Transitioners probably can. That is not my aspiration or complaint.  Variety and kit or scratch-built items are, I feel, good things in themselves and they are necessary things to cover an early period subject.  Having said that, if one or two locomotives and rakes out of, say, the half dozen you want to operate your layout with, were available RTR, that would make all the difference.  It would be nice to have something to run while the balance is being built! But, without RTR support, earlier periods will remain necessarily marginalised, and, generally, layouts fewer and more modest.

 

Hence I repeat the idea that it is chicken and egg.  You need rising interest that could become demand combined with the encouragement that is provided by manufacturers' support.  Each supports the other. You cannot say which has to come first. What is clear to me is that manufacturers have not yet 'grown a pair' and seen what can be done.  Why should they?  Well, arguably they shouldn't.  But, if that is to be the attitude, I can only meet it with "why should I support manufacturers who ignore my interests?"  If manufacturers are capable of taking a longer term view, they might consider how to maximise sales and extend the life of products by moving away from steam outline's 90% mono-period support base.   

 

I think you have provided my conclusion for me; "If earlier period modellers are prepared to buy the current limited offerings, and at the same time venture into kit-building for other rolling stock, then they may find in time that there is less need to take to the workbench."

 

I agree, but it follows, for me, that each time a model is released that could be produced so as to represent an earlier period, but is not, it is a shame and a missed opportunity. I do not see that it is wrong to point that out and to call for better RTR representation of other periods.  I see it as consistent with buying releases that do work for earlier periods and building what you need to in the meantime.   

 

My original point in this topic was that wish-lists are a waste of time, unless they are specific enough to signal interest in an earlier variant.  The BRM poll is not, and it is clear that a vote for a pre-Grouping coach or locomotive is unlikely to result in a model in its pre-Grouping condition, unless, of course, it is a locomotive that was not rebuilt after 1923. 

 

If the poll means, or will be taken to mean, vote for a BR condition ex-so and so, that is possibly also OK for late Grouping, it should say so!  It could also allow for the option of voting for early conditions or specific liveries.  How can anyone taking notice of these polls know whether there is or isn't sufficient interest in earlier condition models if no distinction is made?

 

One thing I'll throw into that.  The GW 517 0-4-2T scored very respectably last year.  Not as popular as a new Terrier, but scoring higher than some of the famous National Collection locomotives that might get commissioned by Locomotion/NRM.  I point this out because it is a class that did not see service with the Nationalised railway, so voters must have been pre-war Groupers and/or Pre-Groupers!  You could not dismiss these as votes for mono-period releases. 

 

As the wish-list disguise the true level of interest in earlier periods, it is hard to judge.  It may or may not be sufficient, but little is being done, so far as I can tell, to explore that potential market or to foster interest in earlier periods by those in a position to influence the market.  

 

James

 

Speaking of coaches for the NRM, it would be nice to do some to go with the Stirling Single. I can think of a few pre-groupers that would fly off the walls that exist there. If the single sells, maybe there will be more commissions.

 

Looking at DJM in particular though, my first choice vote at this time remains a class 89 electric. Sorry it is more recent, but really feel this iconic prototype is missed.