Edwardian

I'm just praying the sale of my house completes before the Kings are ready ....

Yep, they can create some powerfully dangerous drafts with those hankies. BUT In Molly they don't wear bells, so you don't hear them coming, and they black up, so you can't identify them to the Constabulary, and they carry Big Sticks! In the North, it's worse, they clog dance on your head.

Only if you want the more nervous amongst us to suffer nightmares ..

Ooh, this is a bit like 'Mornington Crescent', with the winner the first one to say "in them days we were grateful to live in a hole in the ground!"

As a die-hard Great Western fan since at least the age of Five, I am bound to admit that Great Western 4-6-0s all look the same ... to the Uneducated. Besides, you can't have too many of a good thing (I have 8 Hatton Kings on pre-order, the only question is whether to add a token Hornby)

Indeed, Fat Controller, a man who knows his history. The French were, in any case, only recently released from gaol, specifically for the purpose of dying for the Republic in a bonkers scheme to capture Bristol and Liverpool, and, if memory serves, had promptly gone on the lash upon arrival in Wales (presumably it wasn't a Sunday) and were very badly hung-over. A bunch of scary Welsh women in red shawls and black hats seem to have worked powerfully upon their imaginations! PS, forget Morris Dancing, effete hanky waving stuff, and go to see Molly Dancing. Molly is the winter dance and is sinister and subversive. I like to think of it as Dark Morris.

Interesting Well, we all know that that the Scottish clan tartans as they are now understood were Nineteenth Century "confections", but, of course, tartan was still worn in earlier times (save when proscribed by the Government!) Likewise, those Welsh ladies might be p1mp1ng up their ancestral costume, but there must have been similar rig in circulation earlier; after all, in 1797, they say, the French ran away at Fishguard when saw it!

Damn, no stupid remark springs to mind, but that is a particularly lovely photograph, Penlan. It oozes atmosphere and you just want to try to model it.

W&L look a bad deal. Wrong scale and half as much again as the Peco L&Bs. Cheaper to build a full size W&L coach and live in it.

Yes, by doing what you do here you are exposed fully to the pedantic and impatient, as well as to the informative and supportive, all of which must take time to read and consider. But I think everyone on these threads is capable of appreciating an open channel of communication and the frequent updates. Thank you also for providing a sympathetic and safe haven for Rivet Counters. Everyone believes they exist, but no one ever admits to being one and I began to fear there were endangered, or, even, mythical. Now, thanks to your forum threads, I can say, "I know they exist, I've seen them!" All looks good, but the King will be a seminal model. All strength to your elbow.

Presumably the caption reads: Local Woman: "More O' them poncy painters down there, I zee" Local Man "Arrrgh"

All I can say is "I WANT ONE!" I have a real thing for paddle steamers - must find a water-based scenario for a future project and have a go. Truly inspirational stuff here. I don't often gush, but I think your models are exceptional.

Whoa - some real modelling there and so well executed. Lovely.

Very good; I can almost smell it

How could I have missed this until now? Superb. I probably will never get around to my own Shire-based project - "Three Farthings Junction" - but it could not have rivalled this and there seems no need to do anything now but admire your handiwork! Brings me out in smiles, well done!

I think the whole point is about quality; we have some quality locomotives for Groupers, including the present generation of 'Great [Crest] Western' 4-6-0s, but whereas the other Big 3 have general service corridor coaching of modern standards to match, the GW has been left without sufficient coaches to make up prototypical formations and with models that are pretty dire by the standards of the locomotives. I made a bad point about the Manors and Earls. What I think I was driving at was that there is no now 4300 available, and the old one is pretty old hat, ditto Saint, and there has never been RTR Dukes or Bulldogs, so that bracket of mixed traffic engines, that the Manors, Earls, Granges, Counties replaced, is not open to the pre-36 modeller. That's a pretty big hole in an early '30s roster.

Agreed concerning the locos, save that: You cannot have a Manor or an Earl, or even several engines introduced pre-'36; a 14XX with top feed, or a Collett Goods with the usual tender offering etc, etc. If you are content to run only 4-6-0s plus 3 or 4 tanks, you can represent the locomotives pre-1935. BUT: Please also remember that the Halls are as likely to have Churchward tenders at that time, and your choice is Railroad at this time Hornby have, strangely, only ever done one of the Castle and one of the Star main variants in pre-war livery Your non-hyper priced STEAM Ltd edition Star is post 1934 anyway I'm not complaining, its a better choice than pre-groupers get, and one can always adapt, re-letter etc. No, I'm not complaining, I'm just correcting you, Ozexpatriate! AND, as you say, company wagons have gone mainly to 1936 small lettering, but, again, a minor irritation. What really does for pre-1936 GWR RTR is coaching. This is why the new Hornby Colletts will be such a boon. At the moment: Suburban B Set, Airfix originally, so a fair model but not up to modern standards. Not I think particularly appropriate for the popular rustic branch line subjects where they tend to get used, not the type used on the branches I've sniffed around, at least (e.g. Kingsbridge) Centenaries: Same comments as above re vintage but pretty useless as just 2 of the 10 plus set and they only represent one service on one route. You're knackered period wise, 'cos they're 1935 coaches. Ditto re vintage Airfix auto-coach - which has accuracy issues Hornby Corridor Clerestories - Hopeless, only a Third and a Van Third and no panelling (Duh! Hornby Duh!) The 1936 Sunshine stock. A bit dated as models, but fair, but, again, out of your period, Laddie! Hornby Bow-Ended corridors, thankfully consigned to the Railroad range. 1 comp, 1 Van third, 1 restaurant. Pretty rubbish. Siphon G and Siphon H - nice bodies, but you'll need to replace the bogies. No 70' stock at all No passenger brake vans at all So, when I say, as I said earlier, that at the moment the only passenger rated RTR GW vehicle I can use straight out of the box for my pre-1936 project is Hornby's Horse Box, maybe you'll believe me! So, roll on 2016 and the Colletts. We can have a train at last for all those lovely "Great [Crest] Western" 4-6-0s! It will only have taken 40 years or so for RTR to produce reasonable corridor general service coaches to match them. SO, THANK YOU Hornby, THANK YOU!

Oh, yes, a Norfolk wherry would be very useful.

Ah, but the Premier Line is very smart in lined black, and just think of those Plum & Spilt Milk coaches, surely one of the most stunning coach liveries ever produced. Or, how about a LMS Royal Train pack (the supposedly trivial-minded collector will love that it is Royal), then you can have both a shiny red engine and the most gorgeous coach livery together. I suspect that the RTR-buying public is being rather unfairly done down here, but, if I am wrong about that, let me just say that, if the only way to fund production of colourful pre-grouping and pre-grunge locomotives is the combined might of the Franklin Mint's subscribership, then I, for one, will swallow my pride and buy! PS Let's not forget, though, that we are here to praise Hornby, not to bury it; here we celebrate the impending Colletts, which are much needed and appreciated. if Dunsignalling is proved correct, that eventually there will be versions backdated to 1925, then that is the gilt on the gingerbread. I'm still going to render unto Hornby next year to get the 1928-34 versions.

Some sensible choices for a few of the major pre-group companies would be an ideal. Rather than the top-link show stoppers, most average OO layouts depicting secondary mainlines and branches could happily subsist with, say, 1 Class of passenger tank, 1 class of small passenger tender, a 2-4-0 or 0-4-2, or smaller 4-4-0 or cascaded Single, 1 0-6-0 goods tender engine and maybe a 6-coupled shunter. That's a total of 3 or 4 each for a handful of major companies; it's more than realisable, and some of these models already exist RTR. I think, again, the notion that pre-grouping or early-Grouping, must necessarily be, or, even, that it somehow should be, the preserve of those privileged enough to have the time to acquire, hone and extensively employ the skills necessary to build and paint everything to a modern RTR standard is as unattractive as it is fallacious. It is, in fact, a form of snobbery, and I have no patience with snobbery. Further, the implication that any 'Box Opener' purchasing a pre-grouping RTR loco must be a trivial-minded collector of Gaw-Gaws is as offensive as it is misconceived.

Everything is, I suspect, viewed through Transition Era goggles these days. That's not to be pejorative; it's just that this is where the Majority's interest lies, at least for now. Given that, I suppose popular industrials are likely to be Austerities and inter-war Barclays and such. This view is reflected by DJM as, so far, there is no sign that a pre-Great War cab variant of the Hudswell is in contemplation. Viewing life through the aforementioned goggles, it may, indeed, seem that a Manning Wardle, even one of the ubiquitous K Class, can be overlooked, thought there were Victorian survivors relatively late in the industrial scene. Taking a less narrowly focussed view, I would have to say that the MW K is a good choice. Given that there were hundreds of small industrial types from very many manufacturers throughout the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, if one class stands out for its sheer spread and numbers, it is probably the MW K. It's a damn attractive locomotive to boot and captures well and delightfully the quintessential industrial and Light Railway look of the small-wheeled, six-coupled, saddle tank. They have charm in spades and there is no way buyers could resist; people would go out of their way to find a pretext to own one and a pretext would not prove hard to find. Just because armies of modellers do not kit build them, does not mean that many would not eagerly make house-room for a DJM-standard RTR rendering. It would create its own demand. I disagree that it would detract from the Hudswell. On the contrary, it gives small industrials critical mass and provides the beginnings of a colliery fleet or a Light Railway stud. They should each sell the other. While I would buy anything dating from 1891 or with a long boiler, I suspect these are relative long shots. Anyone modelling between 1860 and 1960, and beyond, can, however, find a use a Manning Wardle. But, while on the subject of small Victorians, can we have a 517 please?!?

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.

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!).

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.

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.