Jump to content
 

Oxford Rail Wish List?


Edwardian
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

Dunsignalling. Edwardian,

 

Good points made on both sides.

 

A few ideas from me - regarding the SECR C class versus the LBSCR E4 (and I make no apology for repeating thoughts from another post elsewhere); the C class came with a promise of the bird cage coaches - still to get beyond the drawing office apparently - which gave purchasers the option of a complete train.  The E4 can currently only be paired with a Hornby guards van. 

 

In both cases the problem of lack of stock can be resolved by purchasing and building kits which are available, but I think the current market is not prepared to do this.  Is this a lack of knowledge that such kits exist?  They are certainly no longer widely advertised in the model press.  Is it that today's modeller does not have the time to build kits?  I could empathise with that having only returned from the armchair since retirement.  Do they just want it served up on a plate?  Could well be in the "I want it and I want it now" philosophy that I see today.

 

Whatever the reason,  the difference in sales between the two models represents the group that "need" to be provided with an rtr rake to follow their loco.   Sadly I think that the delays in release of the Birdcage stock, means that these modellers will not trust a promise any more.  For the future a manufacturer will need to be ready to release a "complete" train in pretty short order.  So if you release a pre-grouping passenger loco, you will need to release accompanying coaches within (a very few) months.  If you release a goods loco, you will need to, at the very least, release a guards van to go with it in the same year. 

 

I think this is another aspect of the joined up thinking to which  Edwardian refers. ​

 

The days of an LNER Flying Scotsman with not a single rtr coach to haul disappeared (no matter how imperfectly) in the 1970s.  Why do manufacturers think they can return to that state today for pre-grouping locomotives?  I wish I could understand.  It seems to me a recipe for disappointment - which indeed the excellent E4 seems to be.

 

In my imagination I do wonder how long it will be before a purchaser of the C class asks for a refund from Bachmann on the basis that it was bought on the back of the promised coaches.

 

 

 

Can all of the companies listed (and not listed for our Scottish friends) be satisfied in short shrift?  Certainly not.  But a step by step approach based on release that could be constructed as a "complete" train will, I think bring dividends. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by your logic the only loco to go with the loco hauled mk3 is the class 87 (not a bad thing tbh). The 47,67, 86 and 90 are taken.

You missed out the 33, 37, 57, 68, 73/9 and 92 from that list of which the 73/9 and 92 are definitely not taken ;)

 

The 86, 87 and 92 would be good targets of opportunity for Oxford, the others (including the 43) much more risky.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm sorry that I only suggested 2 out of 5 Scottish companies! Don't all vote for devolution just because of that!  I'd love to see all 5, and all the Welsh Valleys companies, and all the English companies, and the Irish with 21mm track!

 

There is much in what both Andy and Dunsignalling say.  One or two companies might have to come first.  I'm not expressing a particular preference (my tastes are too catholic for that) when I say that, with the SECR and the LBSC we are closer than with most companies and I thought with the Birdcage announcement that we might actually have arrived at something good!

 

I fear that this means that adherents of companies that have few or no releases thus far would end up at the back of the queue.  My list, that was no doubt justly condemned as both too ambitious and too restrictive, tried to address that problem.  Take the North Eastern.  I live deep within its territory and, if my personal preferences were my guide, I would be looking to this company.  I still included it in my list, because it was major company dominating its region in a way few other companies managed and, thus, very much offering a bit of everything as a subject.  Furthermore, like the North British and the Great Northern (both of which I also suggested for inclusion) the NER was jointly responsible for a major UK trunk route.

 

But, manufacturers testing the market are likely to prefer its southern neighbour, the GNR.  ECML (GN Section) layouts have become increasingly popular and widespread and there are quite a few locomotives (including GN designs) for Grouping and BR modellers to choose from, though, if I were of their number I would feel the want of GNR coaches most keenly.

 

Logically a manufacturer might turn to the GN in preference to the NE at least at first, and I and others potentially interested in the NER as a subject would have to accept that, perhaps learning to build kits whilst we waited!  

 

Nevertheless, get adequate coverage of 2 or 3 companies and logically the rest will eventually follow.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Dunsignalling. Edwardian,

 

Good points made on both sides.

 

A few ideas from me - regarding the SECR C class versus the LBSCR E4 (and I make no apology for repeating thoughts from another post elsewhere); the C class came with a promise of the bird cage coaches - still to get beyond the drawing office apparently - which gave purchasers the option of a complete train.  The E4 can currently only be paired with a Hornby guards van. 

 

In both cases the problem of lack of stock can be resolved by purchasing and building kits which are available, but I think the current market is not prepared to do this.  Is this a lack of knowledge that such kits exist?  They are certainly no longer widely advertised in the model press.  Is it that today's modeller does not have the time to build kits?  I could empathise with that having only returned from the armchair since retirement.  Do they just want it served up on a plate?  Could well be in the "I want it and I want it now" philosophy that I see today.

 

Whatever the reason,  the difference in sales between the two models represents the group that "need" to be provided with an rtr rake to follow their loco.   Sadly I think that the delays in release of the Birdcage stock, means that these modellers will not trust a promise any more.  For the future a manufacturer will need to be ready to release a "complete" train in pretty short order.  So if you release a pre-grouping passenger loco, you will need to release accompanying coaches within (a very few) months.  If you release a goods loco, you will need to, at the very least, release a guards van to go with it in the same year. 

 

I think this is another aspect of the joined up thinking to which  Edwardian refers. ​

 

The days of an LNER Flying Scotsman with not a single rtr coach to haul disappeared (no matter how imperfectly) in the 1970s.  Why do manufacturers think they can return to that state today for pre-grouping locomotives?  I wish I could understand.  It seems to me a recipe for disappointment - which indeed the excellent E4 seems to be.

 

In my imagination I do wonder how long it will be before a purchaser of the C class asks for a refund from Bachmann on the basis that it was bought on the back of the promised coaches.

 

 

 

Can all of the companies listed (and not listed for our Scottish friends) be satisfied in short shrift?  Certainly not.  But a step by step approach based on release that could be constructed as a "complete" train will, I think bring dividends. 

I think the problem is that, so far, all the pre-group editions of r-t-r locos have represented, from their makers' viewpoint, an additional sales stream over and above the 'bread-and-butter' group-era and BR versions. In no case is it likely that they would have been viable on a stand-alone basis.

 

Your hypothesis regarding the Birdcage coaches and my concerns as to the proportion of purchasers to date who may only be interested in collecting locomotives with pretty paint jobs will only be proven or disproven when they finally become available.

 

If your thoughts are correct, Bachmann will announce further types quite rapidly. If my reservations prove well-founded or the outcome is inconclusive, things will go rather quiet while they work out just how much joined-up thinking they can afford.

 

However, it occurs to me that, without knowing how the production figures for SECR 592 and the LBSC-liveried E4 compare, we can't be certain why the latter appears to be a slow seller. It may be that, realising that they could have sold rather more of the C class than they made, Bachmann might have bumped up the production run of the E4. It is even possible that they could have outsold the C but that a surplus still remains.   

 

Either way, the ratio of those who possess C Class No 592 to those who buy a set of coaches to go with it is bound to influence future production quantities and pricing. 

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the SECR C class sell well because it was green and shiny, but the LBSCR E4 is a bit brown and dull, so not as pretty sitting in a collectors display cabinet? As a modeller, rather than a collector, the C class would be useless to me, as by the time I got back into modelling it had sold out, but if there are still E4s available, it would be ideal if I decided to model the Brighton. In fact if I was modelling the K&ESR in 4mm, rather than 7mm, I might even buy one to pay occasional visits as a change from Terriers.

 

What modellers need are products that are available when they model a subject that requires them, not just offered on a once only pre-order basis. If you're out of modelling, modelling a different subject, or don't have any money at the time, you miss out. There's a lot to be said for the olden days when a Tri-ang Jinty could be converted to just about anything! Maybe we should go back to that until 3D printing or Star Trek type replicators can produce anything we want on demand!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Edwardian,

 

As a fellow admirer of Mr Stroudley's fine machines a D1/E1 in the relevant Stroudley liveries would tickle my wallet. ANY LBSCR coach would also be luvverly as would PO 1907 wagons from any area as previous posts have suggested these roamed far and wide.

 

Cornish exile in West Wales (and very happy!) with very little money and even less sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

John, the E Class is a seriously good model.  Owning one in umber will put a smile on your face and you won't regret it!

Seen them and they are indeed very nice but they didn't get within 50 miles of the area I model and other manufacturers have more appropriate items on the way that I need the money for.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hey Dubya,

 

Looks like we caught ourselves a fishy.

Translation: "Tim, we may have found ourselves a new recruit that is sympathetic to our cause".

Dear Sir

I have been on the apple juice today but will try and make a coherent response once I can feel my face and hands again.

 

Cheerzes, Dubya

 

post-1328-0-29836400-1455916805_thumb.jpg

 

Gosh...

Edited by Tim Dubya
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

John, the E Class is a seriously good model.  Owning one in umber will put a smile on your face and you won't regret it!

I could get away with an LSWR loco, but how many LBSCR locos found their way onto the GWR in the West Country? Anyway, I've got enough jobs queuing up already without another loco to convert to EM!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

BG John

 

yes I am sure pretty colours sell better than plain black (or umber), but on the other hand Hornby Ax1 Terriers in umber have sold for two decades - maybe it is the name on the side that sells.

Liveries will attract or deter some modellers and I had already thought that an LNWR (black) locomotive  is only likely to sell well with a set of plum and off-white coaches available at the same time.  Let's see how the coal tank goes, perhaps I have it all wrong.   Sorry LNWR modellers this is not a downer on you or your chosen company -  a D (original condition) would suit me just fine.

 

It is undoubtedly a complex situation.    

 

I maintain however, nice looking loco - preferably in "pretty" livery  - plus the making of a train to go with it,  will sell better than an equal loco scanned from our current preservation stock with zilch that matches.

 

If said loco and stock can also be sold in grouping and BR liveries then you have the basis for a winner. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why people keep saying that the 86 "is done" (including the annual wish list)  We only have the Hornby model current, a model which was new when I was doing my A levels in 1981 so hardly counts as "contemporary", and Heljan who appear to have no further interest in producing any more, assuming the moulds are still intact, plus in any case modelled the loco in a single, post 1997 condition, so as far as I'm concerned the AL6/86 is an open goal, especially if the model could be made using modern techniques to allow every variant from as delivered AL6 to later variants.  Given Oxford don't seem to be too worried about taking on Hornby (Adams, Dean Goods and Mk3s) perhaps they could do an 86 especially given the myriad number of liveries available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

This thread seems to me to be very similar to wish-lists that people have suggested for other manufacturers, in that the things wished for seem to be the same in all wish-lists. Maybe the time has come for the people who run this community resource to ban wish-lists altogether, to stop the continuous procession of people's lists which ignore the fact that the wished-for item is already available from some other manufacturer or would result in a tremendous loss resulting in the manufacturer going out of business.

 

If you don't like the model produced by a particular manufacturer, why don't you buy one and modify it to your exacting standards yourself. After all, you are a railway modeller, aren't you, and modelling does involve making changes to rtr items, doesn't it? If you aren't a modeller, but just a collector, then you won't care what models are produced, and you won't be making wish-lists to post here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, maybe, the time has come to discourage, gently, of course, negativity amongst posters.  Whether manufacturer or humble customer, whenever something is proposed, there is an unholy rush on the part of those not interested in it to proclaim that they are not interested in it!  Human nature, I suppose, but I cannot help but think that, whilst support for a proposal necessarily requires a response to it, lack of support does not.   

 

Here was I foolishly supposing that a wish-list was one of Life's more innocent pleasures, one in which we could indulge without fear of causing angst to fellow modellers or perhaps unwittingly, but fatally, wrecking the industry.

 

So, though I fear that banning things, as Budgie proposes, strikes me as a little lacking in tolerance towards our fellow man, perhaps we might gently discourage certain types of posts.  Perhaps posters who come onto on wish-list threads just to say that they do not want such-and-such, or, perhaps, even more bizarrely, those who come onto a wish-list thread to say they don't like wish-list threads [Teenagers insert smiley face here]!

 

Fortunately God gave us all the innate ability to ignore things that do not interest us. It seems that sometimes this is forgotten in online communities!  Nevertheless, for the sake of those who dare to wish, forgive us for our many and manifold sins, O Lord! 

 

In the defence of the mere wishers amongst us, I would say that each new release, particularly where it helps to open up a new subject to us, the modelling public, should be a fillip to the industry, RTR and kit manufacturers alike, and to kit-builders, scratch-builders and converters, as no subject can ever be comprehensively covered, even were such a thing desirable.  But I do see Budgie's point; I take it entirely seriously, I recognise the danger.  We should be careful what we wish for; I for one cannot sleep at night for the anguished screams and wails emanating from Transition Era modellers bemoaning the tragic fact that RTR manufacturers have left them so little they need to build from kits or from scratch these days.  I pity them exceedingly, and Thank the Lord, my tastes lie with the pre-Grouping Era!

Edited by Edwardian
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy to see Oxford Rail announce at least *something* compatible stockwise for each loco announcement, as I expect there's at least a temporary boost in interest beyond fans of specific railways. But these are early days for the company, and it might be better for them look for the gaps.

More generally, I note that it was coaching stock from a railway largely contemporaneous with pre-Grouping (the Metropolitan) that came second in the BRM poll after GWR Toplights. Make of that what you will, but worth considering when bringing up consistency with wish-lists. I'd like to see them, but would they really sell?

 

[At this point, I am mandated to suggest a LNWR Oerlikon set, but I'm going to add that a release should also include a Siemens predecessor so as to get the OHLE vote for the later Heysham sets. I therefore insert an infantile gurning pictogram to indicate humorous derision.]

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

This thread seems to me to be very similar to wish-lists that people have suggested for other manufacturers, in that the things wished for seem to be the same in all wish-lists. Maybe the time has come for the people who run this community resource to ban wish-lists altogether, to stop the continuous procession of people's lists which ignore the fact that the wished-for item is already available from some other manufacturer or would result in a tremendous loss resulting in the manufacturer going out of business.

 

If you don't like the model produced by a particular manufacturer, why don't you buy one and modify it to your exacting standards yourself. After all, you are a railway modeller, aren't you, and modelling does involve making changes to rtr items, doesn't it? If you aren't a modeller, but just a collector, then you won't care what models are produced, and you won't be making wish-lists to post here.

I think it is up to the individual to decide where to draw this particular line.

 

My own position is that I won't knowingly vote for something that is available in kit form unless I consider the kit cannot be used to produce a decent model without a substantial amount of added scratch-building. Things have moved on in kit design just as they have in r-t-r and that kind of product deserves competition.

 

Existing r-t-r models that are seriously inaccurate (e.g. Bachmann LMS Cattle wagon) or require a lot of effort to bring up to standard (e.g. Hornby Terrier) are also fair game IMHO. 

 

Where a good kit exists and there is a prototypical variant, the r-t-r model should not duplicate what is already available as Hornby did with the Blue Spot fish vans. I doubt I am alone in having shunned this model because I already have enough kit-built ones, but would have bought several had they covered the alternative diagram. 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, maybe, the time has come to discourage, gently, of course, negativity amongst posters.  Whether manufacturer or humble customer, whenever something is proposed, there is an unholy rush on the part of those not interested in it to proclaim that they are not interested in it!  Human nature, I suppose, but I cannot help but think that, whilst support for a proposal necessarily requires a response to it, lack of support does not.   

 

Here was I foolishly supposing that a wish-list was one of Life's more innocent pleasures, one in which we could indulge without fear of causing angst to fellow modellers or perhaps unwittingly, but fatally, wrecking the industry.

.........

..............

 

Fortunately God gave us all the innate ability to ignore things that do not interest us. .............. and Thank the Lord, my tastes lie with the pre-Grouping Era!

 

I draw comfort from the fact that I have backed some winners in some recent lists so here are some more..............

 

post-489-0-06474100-1455982859.jpg

The criteria for a successful 4-4-0 have been re-learned, and (IMHO rightly) most of Mr Drummond's work is thought worthy of a model. So one of his 4-4-0 designs would not fail.

 

post-489-0-39571000-1455983287.jpg

 

Take your choice from this pic, a Beyer Saddle Tank, a Caboose Van, or a straight switch turnout to support Mr Peco's new BH track.

 

Or some pre-Group civil engineering....

post-489-0-87601700-1455983694.jpg

 

PB

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I could get away with an LSWR loco, but how many LBSCR locos found their way onto the GWR in the West Country? Anyway, I've got enough jobs queuing up already without another loco to convert to EM!

 

Two 'Terriers' definitely passed into GWR stock -  GWR Nos. 5 & 6, which were both acquired from the WC&PR in July 1940; No.5 was named 'Portishead' and was originally LBCR No.43 'Gypsy Hill' while No.6, unnamed, was originally No.83 'Ashtead'.  No.6 was withdrawn in January 1948 but No.5 lasted until March 1954.  No.5 spent its GWR working days mainly in the Bristol area on dock lines.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two 'Terriers' definitely passed into GWR stock -  GWR Nos. 5 & 6, which were both acquired from the WC&PR in July 1940; No.5 was named 'Portishead' and was originally LBCR No.43 'Gypsy Hill' while No.6, unnamed, was originally No.83 'Ashtead'.  No.6 was withdrawn in January 1948 but No.5 lasted until March 1954.  No.5 spent its GWR working days mainly in the Bristol area on dock lines.

But the WC&P didn't even buy them until long after history ends in my world. They were still happily ambling around the bottom right hand corner of England in 1905!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I could get away with an LSWR loco, but how many LBSCR locos found their way onto the GWR in the West Country? Anyway, I've got enough jobs queuing up already without another loco to convert to EM!

Not the GWR but two Terriers were bought by the LSWR to use on the Lyme Regis branch when it opened in 1903. Anything else happened over two decades after your time of interest.

 

Next Brighton input down west was when redundant E1s got rebuilt as 0-6-2 tanks for use in the West Country (1927) and D1s in the 30s; again for the Lyme Regis branch, though they proved unsuitable. They ended up being used on the Seaton branch for a while and various other odd jobs Exmouth Jn. found for them.

 

The only ones to end up on GWR metals were two more Terriers, bought by the WC&P and absorbed along with that company - again, way too late for you.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...