Collett 'Bow Ended' Standard 57' Corridor Stock Coaches for 2016

[rovex]

Question: Are there any suburban coaches which share the same underframe as these, in which case would it be an easy conversion (with the appropriate overlays) or even an option for future releases by Hornby?

 

Discuss 

[chrisf]

More than I thought.  D98 brake third and E131 composites, formed into 4 coach sets and known, confusingly, in the Birmingham Division as B sets but also found in Chester and London.  As I think we have said before, Bettabitz used to make brass sides for these and 247 sold them until recently.   Also D101 brake third, C56 third and E134 composites, formed into five coach sets and allocated mostly to Cardiff.

 

Note that formations and allocations were pre-WW2.  Some of the sets got moved around during the war and many of them were broken up.

 

Chris 

[gwrrob]

Hands up who wants Hornby to do these in this livery sometime, hopefully 2017.

 

 

[bgman]

Hands up who wants Hornby to do these in this livery sometime, hopefully 2017.

DSCN6486.jpg

DSCN6486(1)bw.jpg

Blimey you've even got some Italian agreement on that one Rob !

 

[Adrian Wintle]

Hands up who wants Hornby to do these in this livery sometime, hopefully 2017.

 

DSCN6486.jpg

 

DSCN6486(1)bw.jpg

 

I can think of 3 liveries that I'd like to see before that one (faux panelling, early '30s single lining, shirtbutton single lining), so if you can wait until 2020

[St Enodoc]

I can think of 3 liveries that I'd like to see before that one (faux panelling, early '30s single lining, shirtbutton single lining), so if you can wait until 2020

BR maroon.

[Edwardian]

A tad early for me, but the faux panelling would be superb and I would not resist.  A first for RTR and it would be stunning.

 

Hornby are past masters at tarting up crude old (often Triang) models with superb printing to sell at a premium to collectors in train packs.  So they could do a wonderful job at faux panelling on these state of the art new Colletts.

 

If I were a betting man, I'd bet heavily that they won't [sigh]

[Ozexpatriate]

Hands up who wants Hornby to do these in this livery sometime, hopefully 2017.

Going by standard Hornby behaviour, the best odds for the next livery would be crimson and cream I think. (I'm assuming they appeared in that livery.)

 

I can think of 3 liveries that I'd like to see before that one (faux panelling, early '30s single lining, shirtbutton single lining), so if you can wait until 2020

A tad early for me, but the faux panelling would be superb and I would not resist.  A first for RTR and it would be stunning.

 

Hornby are past masters at tarting up crude old (often Triang) models with superb printing to sell at a premium to collectors in train packs.  So they could do a wonderful job at faux panelling on these state of the art new Colletts.

The faux panelling shown on the Hornby website would indeed be nice.

[St Enodoc]

Going by standard Hornby behaviour, the best odds for the next livery would be crimson and cream I think. (I'm assuming they appeared in that livery.)

 

The faux panelling shown on the Hornby website would indeed be nice.

Michael, crimson and cream is part of the first release.

[Edwardian]

I suspect that the picture on the Hornby website is chosen because it is a works photo and, thus, suitable to illustrate the coach.  It is in faux panelling because they were out-shopped in that livery.  Sadly I suspect it does not suggest that Hornby are contemplating this livery.  There is generally not the level of commitment to early Grouping to suggest that this would be a realistic expectation.  Shame, as Hornby could produce an absolute stunner here.  But, then, Bachmann has evidently bottled out of fully lined LMS Period I coaches.  Despite the existence of tooling that enables the period-range to be extended backwards, I just don't see this happening.  Same old, same old livery options will doubtless continue. 

[Dunsignalling]

I suspect that the picture on the Hornby website is chosen because it is a works photo and, thus, suitable to illustrate the coach.  It is in faux panelling because they were out-shopped in that livery.  Sadly I suspect it does not suggest that Hornby are contemplating this livery.  There is generally not the level of commitment to early Grouping to suggest that this would be a realistic expectation.  Shame, as Hornby could produce an absolute stunner here.  But, then, Bachmann has evidently bottled out of fully lined LMS Period I coaches.  Despite the existence of tooling that enables the period-range to be extended backwards, I just don't see this happening.  Same old, same old livery options will doubtless continue. 

The "same old, same old" liveries get re-used because Hornby (and Bachmann) know they have sold in the past and should do so again.

 

They also, through feedback and market research, have a pretty good idea of the proportions of people who model the various eras. A general rule of thumb is that, as you go further back, the numbers taper off, the market becomes more fragmented and liveries get more elaborate. A triple whammy for both the costing and the sales potential of any specific model.

 

The multiple printing passes (and consequent higher rejection rate) required to create the teak livery on Hornby's Gresley coaches meant they had to be priced at a substantial premium over the ones in BR livery. The same would apply if comparing the complex 1920s/early 1930s livery with the simplified mid-late 1930s style adopted by the GWR, also for cost reasons.

 

Whether Hornby lack "commitment" to the earlier period or they have concluded there to be a (relative) lack of demand for it, is a moot point. Nearly all the GWR modellers I know follow the 1930s (mainly the latter half of the decade). Perhaps Hornby's research results look similar and they are playing safe by concentrating on that period.

 

Maybe fans of the earlier era should get together to convince Hornby of the potential or, failing that, to commission/group fund what they want produced.

 

John

Edited July 22, 2015 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

Blimey you've even got some Italian agreement on that one Rob !

 

image.jpg

Who's that bloke up on the balcony with bgman?

 

John

[Godfrey Glyn]

I know that many of us are rather fuzzy about the number of rivets or the shape of chimneys but may I humbly point out that the guy raising his hands is, by nationality at least, a German and not Italian! I am sure he would however agree with the sentiment of this suggestion.

Godfrey

[Edwardian]

I believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest "build it and it will run".  Most of us are either wholly or partially dependent upon RTR stock, and a head start from RTR would lead many of us into new areas and then allow us to supplement our stock with the odd, say, white-metal kit.  Our skills still develop, but its a practical proposition from the start.  Lack of RTR support should not, in principle, prevent one having a go.  It won't prevent me from having a go, but it will inevitably limit the volumes of entrants prepared to explore other, earlier, periods.

 

That is how it works.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, there has been a long, quiet explosion of Sothern Railway/Region layouts over the last decade that precisely reflects the welcome decision of manufacturers to move from RTR famine to RTR feast for this region.  Building on what has gone before, for sure, but these modelling trends are at least in part RTR manufacturer led.

 

It's all about doing enough to make a particular period/company reasonably accessible. I might aspire to finescale, kit-built modelling, but I have limited time as a full time worker and family man and I have zero interest in modelling the transition period for however long it would take me to master the skills and produce a pile of etched brass locomotives and coaches for an earlier period.

 

I suspect the myth, persistently aired, that there is insufficient demand for more Grouping and pre-grouping models is precisely that, a myth.  Bachmann do not seem to have struggled to shift their pre-Great War version of the LBSC E4. OO Works have just sold out of their pre-grouping liveried I3, and without a picture even published!  The same can be said of the olive green Southern versions of these two models.

 

More coherence in releases for earlier periods will persuade more people to try them.  You cannot really say that there is insufficient interest in earlier periods when all that has been offered are random scattergun releases based upon often 'inaccurate' preserved examples or upon on what can be easily adapted from what has been released with the BR modeller in mind.  There would need to be some specific commitment to the earlier periods and some coherence in the releases.  Things have improved significantly in recent years, for which I am duly pleased and grateful, but there is a long way to go. 

 

Why do so many of us model the '50s and '60s?  Not, I suspect, because it is clearly and obviously the only, or, even, the most interesting and attractive era ever known.  That is not to deny it its merits, but to say, goodness, there is a lot more worth modelling out of 150 years of railway history.  Obviously, it is modelled in the main because it is what is remembered.  It's a nostalgia market.  Nothing wrong with that.  One suspects that others who don't remember that era may model it also, because, frankly, its the only fully supported era.  The hard question is, what happens when the generation that train-spotted in the '50s and '60s hangs up its soldering iron and goes to the Great Shed in the Sky?

 

Is the answer that we will all model blue diseasels onward, with the odd preservation layout (funny how the preserved scene has not taken off as a modelling subject in proportion to the ease with which it can be modelled)?

 

I just want to encourage the idea of providing an alternative; that manufacturers lead us back into a richer past.  The foundations for that should be laid now.

 

I do agree with Dunsignalling's point that those who might want earlier stuff should get more organised.  Unfortunately, in an individualistic and often opinionated hobby, that would be a bit like trying to herd cats, not least because there is so much more to choose from.  What subjects would command consensus?

 

Example: One of my pet obsessions is with the Great Western 517s (the precursor to the well-known 4800/14XX 0-4-2T auto tanks).  I am, and remain, convinced that this would sell, for both Grouping and pre-grouping eras in sufficient numbers to make it viable.  What response do you get when you put this?  Well, one forum member, whom I do respect, said, in effect, "oh yes please, but only if the precise variant/livery/date combination that I have in mind was produced".  Therein lies the difficulty in building consensus, whereas, if I simply went ahead and released models of these, within months there would be a raft of pre-grouping "Ashburtons" with my little Edwardian 517 chuffering about with a rake of Ratio 4-wheelers and twice as many Grouping versions with one chuffering around with an autocoach.

 

I would bet money on that.  If I had sufficient to invest, I would do just that.

 

So, I am afraid that manufacturers need to read the runes, but then take a lead.  it's just the dynamics of the thing.

 

The conclusion.  The market, or the shaping of it by manufacturers, has not yet evolved such that faux panelling Colletts can be expected.  I would absolutely love to be proved wrong on that.

[Dunsignalling]

 

 

 

Example: One of my pet obsessions is with the Great Western 517s (the precursor to the well-known 4800/14XX 0-4-2T auto tanks).  I am, and remain, convinced that this would sell, for both Grouping and pre-grouping eras in sufficient numbers to make it viable.  What response do you get when you put this?  Well, one forum member, whom I do respect, said, in effect, "oh yes please, but only if the precise variant/livery/date combination that I have in mind was produced".  Therein lies the difficulty in building consensus, whereas, if I simply went ahead and released models of these, within months there would be a raft of pre-grouping "Ashburtons" with my little Edwardian 517 chuffering about with a rake of Ratio 4-wheelers and twice as many Grouping versions with one chuffering around with an autocoach.

 

 

I think you have gone to the heart of the matter, there.

 

Railways, irrespective of era (except, perhaps, the present day) have been great recyclers of older machinery, often modifying what started off as a fairly uniform design at different times and at different workshops so as to produce several sub-classes. When you have something like the 517, there were sub-classes from the beginning.

 

That's not unique to the 517 or even to the GWR. I am into BR Southern Region and have a liking for M7s and, to give Hornby their due, they have covered what most people think M7s look like. In fact, they have barely scratched the surface of the possible permutations. I would eagerly add another two or three to my existing four if they covered the other versions I want but, even though I follow the popular era, I'm not holding my breath.  

 

I don't think out-and-out pre-group modelling will ever become r-t-r "mainstream" simply because of the "Marmite" attitudes of those whose interests are very tightly focussed plus the fact that many of them look down on anything made from plastic. Whatever popularisation does occur will, IMHO, come from producing pre-group liveried preserved locos and then gradually adding appropriate stock liveried to match their earlier lives as well as more "commercial" later eras. This is what Bachmann are doing with their forthcoming SECR coaches but that will tend to exclude coaches that disappeared much before WW2 purely because they won't have the late group/BR liveries to give them volume.

 

The wariness of Hornby et al in going for pre-group models in quantity with no obvious tie-in to what they already produce is understandable. If they tried it and it went wrong, it would kill the idea for a decade. Tri-ang's "Lord of the Isles" and coaches showed it could work in the 1960s but I doubt it made them any money in the first few years. Current market conditions don't allow that sort of thing except as a low volume, big ticket collector's edition that will cover it's costs over (at most) two smallish production runs with maybe another bite of the cherry a few years down the road. 

 

Your 517 would stand it's best chance if initially produced in the versions that would enable existing GWR fans to "stretch" their eras a bit rather than jumping straight in to pre-WW1 or even pre-1923.

 

John

Edited July 22, 2015 by Dunsignalling

[Edwardian]

John, I agree, though I would add that those who favour earlier periods should continue to promote them to a wider, and entry-level, audience (I say that as a member of the entry-level audience), and push manufacturers for what we can get. 

 

Please forgive another example, but it's recent and true, and goes, I think, to both our points:

 

If you approached me pre-production to pre-commit to, say, an LBSC E4, I would say "great, give me one in its original configuration in Stroudley Goods Green".  

 

Mr Bachmann didn't ask me; he just went ahead, and, when he had made one, he said, "here is a re-boilered E4, I made it for all my mates who model BR Southern Region, but, look, I've done one in the earliest livery the tooling will take, and, look, it's a real stunner!".  Mr Bachmann then added that he was thinking of doing another Brighton engine, an Atlantic, and this would probably be green for now, but might be brown at some point in the future.

 

I said, "Great, you know what, I'll have one.  It means I can model the Brighton, albeit set half a dozen years later than I might otherwise have done, but that's still a great subject".  I then thought to myself "the Umber E4 makes the case for finding £250 to give to those nice people at OO Works for an Umber I3, I'd always wanted to give them a go.  Oh, now I notice some whitemetal kits that don't look too daunting .... maybe in the not-too-distant future..."

 

That is how it goes for me, and I suspect, would for others.  The salient point is that it's manufacturer led, by Bachmann deciding on a couple of releases with pre-grouping relevance and just 'imposing' them on the market, thereby creating need, and creating opportunities for minor manufacturers and kit manufacturers alike. 

 

It is true that this is a safer bet because it uses the same tooling as the BR versions that Bachmann knows will sell, but there are plenty of opportunities to do this - backdate existing tooling - that are not being taken.  Hornby is the great sinner here, and I use GWR Grouping era here simply because I know at least something about the prototypes:

 

• Only 1 of the 2 major variants of the re-tooled Castle has ever been released in pre-war GW livery, yet tooling was made for both variants and BR modellers get both (this, despite it having been around for years now, so, no, it's not just a case of waiting until they get around to it). No accurate '20s small tender variant either.
• Only 1 of the 2 major variants of the new Star has ever been released in pre-war GW livery, yet tooling was made for both variants and BR modellers get both.  Also, no allowance for backdating Stars beyond the '30s, though this latter is a tooling issue. 
• At long last a Hall with a Churchward tender in pre-war GW livery, but only in Railroad, so it needs a repaint and lining anyway.
• Only the NRM Ltd edition 2800 had the characteristic pre-war look - "Great Western" lettered tender combined with no outside steam pipe.  
• Collett Bow-enders will probably be released in the 1928-1934 era livery, which is great, and I would expect 1935 and post war liveries too.  As I say, I do not expect the 1925-1927 as-built livery, which is a shame.  I will, therefore, buy 1 set, rather than 2. 

Hornby does not need to produce a single tool to get really very good coverage of the 1925-35 period on the Great Western.  It's just that it won't.  

 

Incidentally, that entirely explains the earlier comment that most GW modellers go for the late '30s - that I assure you is largely out of necessity.  I am interested in 1935, and I can assure you that the only RTR model to modern standards of a GW passenger-rated vehicle that I can obtain off the shelf is the Hornby GW horsebox.  The new Colletts in 1927 livery will change all that; don't get me wrong, I'm overjoyed. 

 

Bachmann is slow on introducing and re-introducing pre-war liveries, but at least it does happen (though I am faced with the prospect of spending £200 in order to acquire redundant Mark I coaches and a post-war 'bus as the price of acquiring an unmodified Hall with small tender in pre-war livery (subject to checking the accuracy of the preserved example!).

Edited July 22, 2015 by Edwardian

[coachmann]

Hornby Maunsell coaches are in full panelled SR livery and lined teak LNER livery. Granted, both were painted this in in the 1930s whereas the GWR went 'simple' in 1928 and the LMS in 1934. But as a RTR coach producer,  I can tell you LMS full panelled livery is the most asked for and no doubt the same would apply to the GWR. It did for 30-odd years before I ceased painting for other producers. Hornby already does its locos in suitable GWR liveries and the King, Castle, Star and Hall would look good enough with fully panelled Collett coaches to pretty well guarantee sales to people attracted to appealing trains.

Edited July 22, 2015 by coachmann

[gwrrob]

I will work with whatever Hornby throw at us after all we have waited long enough for a 21st century model coach in any authentic GWR livery.Post world war 2 would be brilliant but I will use earlier liveries and rebrand them.

[GNR Dave]

There could be good money to make for a RTR manufacturer willing to take the plunge with pre-grouping.

Bachmann's C class in SECR livery is fetching £500 on ebay, despite there being no RTR stock for it to run with. I wonder what price it will fetch when the birdcages eventually arrive in SECR livery. Even the E4 in (by comparison) the relatively drab LB&SC livery is selling well with no stock to back it up. 

 With Locomotion's Atlantic and Stirling Single, the floodgates could be about to open !

If these bow enders are back datable, (my GWR knowledge is less than minimal !) I think it would be short sighted of Hornby not to dip the proverbial toe. Especially if it is only a livery change.

[No Decorum]

I hope Mr. Hornby has his reading glasses on.

 

I also hope you secured your 00 Works LBSC I3; now sold out whilst I dithered. That was a very good choice; a class of great historical significance. Perhaps It will be produced by Bachmann, when the realisation dawns that it was so significant, fits well with the E4 and Atlantic and is small and more marketable than something big and expensive.

 

After, of course, Bachmann knocks out a few 7Fs in Slow & Dirty Jerky black.

[Edwardian]

No Decorum, I am sorry you missed out on the I3.  I only just managed it, as it turns out, though I did not realise this at the time. Phew. Usually, it is me that misses out and there is still a Bachmann fully lined C Class-shaped hole in my life.

 

Reviewing my post, I realise that it struck a note of negativity towards Hornby, whereas, we have much to be thankful for.  Accordingly, I just wanted to add that:

 

• I am grateful to Hornby for the re-tooled 2800 and the re-tooled Castle.  I have several of each. 
• Likewise I am grateful for the Star, all the more because this was unexpected and a little brave considering the relatively brief BR careers (I have a couple). 
• Another most pleasant surprise was the 7200.  I saw a picture of one on shed at Newton Abbot, so thought, "what the Hell!" 
• I think the Railroad Hall is a great little model and very good value.  I did bag one. 
• Finally, I am looking forward to the King, though I reckon DJ models will be the one to watch; I would like to try both.
• I am also the happy owner of a 700 Class because Hornby did this in '20s-early '30s livery, so, as Coachman suggests, there is interest in earlier Grouping subjects.

It is simply that I am a little frustrated where tooling already exists for versions that are persistently neglected in pre-war guise and would like to highlight to Mr Hornby that I could have doubled up on every GW locomotive of his I have bought had he thought to put everything he has tools for in pre-war liveries at some stage. 

[Adrian Wintle]

If these bow enders are back datable, (my GWR knowledge is less than minimal !) I think it would be short sighted of Hornby not to dip the proverbial toe. Especially if it is only a livery change.

 

They were built from 1925, so no pre-grouping liveries. There are at least 12 possible livery variations, though.

 

Adrian

[Dunsignalling]

There could be good money to make for a RTR manufacturer willing to take the plunge with pre-grouping.

Bachmann's C class in SECR livery is fetching £500 on ebay, despite there being no RTR stock for it to run with. I wonder what price it will fetch when the birdcages eventually arrive in SECR livery. Even the E4 in (by comparison) the relatively drab LB&SC livery is selling well with no stock to back it up. 

 With Locomotion's Atlantic and Stirling Single, the floodgates could be about to open !

If these bow enders are back datable, (my GWR knowledge is less than minimal !) I think it would be short sighted of Hornby not to dip the proverbial toe. Especially if it is only a livery change.

I think the SECR C is a bad example for two reasons:

 

(1) Many, if not most (me included) who wanted it wanted No.592 as preserved on the Bluebell Railway, which is what the model represents. It was not marketed as a limited edition, so I live in hope.......

 

(2) It is, at best, debateable whether the SECR actually painted C Class locos in full passenger livery and their model of No.271 in the simpler livery that is known to be correct for the pre-group period hasn't stimulated anything like as much demand.

 

Your last sentence provides the key where these coaches are concerned; how deeply should Hornby dip their toe? The complex 1920s livery would probably come with a price penalty of £10 or so per coach over the GWR simple livery or BR ones. Nobody really knows if that would reduce demand but Hornby would have to assume it might.

 

Minimising that risk would probably involve such variants being made in small numbers to guarantee selling out, potentially leaving some would-be buyers to go without.  

 

Bearing in mind that Hornby are still in the recovery ward, they will concentrate on the "safer" later versions until the Bow-enders have paid for themselves. Personally, I think the older style will be covered, just not until after this new range has broken even and Hornby have rebuilt their confidence enough to try something a little adventurous.

 

John

Edited July 22, 2015 by Dunsignalling

[Ozexpatriate]

Michael, crimson and cream is part of the first release.

Thank you, I was clearly not paying attention!

[J C Fenton]

There is much in what Dunsignalling and Edwardian say.  It is practical to do more things pre-1936, but manufacturers may not (yet) regard it as commercial.  To keep on topic, the new Colletts in faux panelling would be the prime example of what could be done.

 

I say "pre-1936" because it seems to me that the need to feed the BR modellers' appetites means that a lot of stuff is produced for them that has its origin in the late '30s.  Lots of Grouping locomotive designs that are produced as models date from then.  For the GW this includes the Manor and Earl.  In other cases, Grouping Railways did not really get into their stride until the '30s; the LMS and LNER seemed both strapped for cash and some of the most well-known standard designs were late in coming as a result, making the late '30s something of a  Golden age, or, at least, Indian summer.  Arguably the Great Western's last great Golden Age was a decade earlier and there is much, much to interest the modeller in the often more colourful early grouping years with its plethora of non/pre-standard designs and transitional liveries. 

 

So, if you look at RTR, but also things as diverse as Parkside wagon kits and Oxford diecasts, there is a lot here that comes in for the first time in the mid to late 30s and after, and always much less for the preceding 15 years.

 

So, if adherents to the 1923-1935 period or pre-grouping wanted to get organised, they ought to concentrate, IMHO, on, say, 1895-1935, and seek to build consensus for models that make that period a more practicable proposition.  I'd start by making sure that each major pre-grouping company/constituent was represented by a humble six-coupled goods.  Some of the most obvious omissions would seem to be one for the LBSC, MR, LNWR and NER, not to mention a Dean and an Armstrong for the GW fans.  New models should have a built in capacity for back-dating.

 

Perhaps, though, a first step would be to gang up on the manufacturers to suggest back-dating models already in their ranges. Start with the new Colletts by pushing for "as-built" livery.  Could not some of the Line Societies come on board to help identify other suitable cases for treatment?