Beyond the Class 85

[ThaneofFife]

I was of course being a smidge fascitious......id like to avoid the thread going down the same dark path as the "better looking 00 track" thread kept going with one side wanting to talk about rtr and rtp and another side telling everyone to scratchbuild or letting everyone know they scratchbuild.its of no relevance really.....maybe a simple link to a catenary scratchbuilding thread ccould take away any traffic interested in such a topic rather than have it muddy the waters in this one.

Edited March 21, 2014 by ThaneofFife

[Titan]

I'd disagree - the 4 car gives a better basis for going forward, and a better place to stop if there are no further developments. Even if all that is ever produced is the "as built" 309/3, that could be used as the basis for modelling 2/3's of the fleet throughout their working life (and potentially could be bodged into the remaining third with greater ease than the other way around). I suspect a 2 car 309 will remain as such.

You are absolutely right that the 309/3 would be the best 'only' one to have from a modellers point of view, but when it comes to sales forecasts/financial risks it would need careful weighing up, as there are different drivers - a 309/1 would be more affordable which would tend to increase sales, but is not as desirable as a 309/3. A 309/1 would require less tooling so less risk. It would take a very clever person to get it right as there are just so many angles to cover. The question really is how many of each would you be likely to sell and which would be the best return/least risk? It could be the 309/1, it could be the 309/3. So far given a choice the manufacturers tend to go for the two car version (Networker, EPB) The only way we will find out for sure is if it actually happens!

Edited March 21, 2014 by Titan

[frobisher]

So far given a choice the manufacturers tend to go for the two car version (Networker, EPB)

But those can, do and did operate in combination with other two car units. The 309/1 didn't in practice which is a crucial difference. The sheer fact of being such a varied class I think will place it in "risky" territory compared to other AC EMU types. There's a lot more commonality with the 1959 units (304, 305, 308 and 504) for instance, and they cover a broader operational area overall.

[GordonC]

With such an untapped marked like AC locos and units, someone (I'm presuming Bachmann as they're the main manufacturer making moves in this area) may need to produce a couple of models to span the eras to determine what the public are interested in buying and what they aren't. If the Class 85 covers up to early 90s and Class 350 from 2004 onwards there is perhaps a missing period in the middle that still needs covering to get a better idea of what sales to expect for the different eras

[sub39h]

With such an untapped marked like AC locos and units, someone (I'm presuming Bachmann as they're the main manufacturer making moves in this area) may need to produce a couple of models to span the eras to determine what the public are interested in buying and what they aren't. If the Class 85 covers up to early 90s and Class 350 from 2004 onwards there is perhaps a missing period in the middle that still needs covering to get a better idea of what sales to expect for the different eras

 

I think it's a little more complex than that - the 85 and the 350 are fairly regional and we'd need something that operates in a wider area. Maybe that's why the Class 90 is so often put forward - it operates/operated everything from express passenger trains and sleeper trains to freight trains and even stepped in for the Class 91s under GNER ownership meaning it can reasonably be used on WCML, ECML and GEML layouts. They can also be had in at least a dozen livery variations and operated from the late 80s to the present day. This would make their appeal very widespread.   

Edited March 21, 2014 by sub39h

[Titan]

But those can, do and did operate in combination with other two car units. The 309/1 didn't in practice which is a crucial difference. The sheer fact of being such a varied class I think will place it in "risky" territory compared to other AC EMU types. There's a lot more commonality with the 1959 units (304, 305, 308 and 504) for instance, and they cover a broader operational area overall.

That is true and probably the biggest drawback of the two car.  I am wondering though - is there any three car unit where both driving cars are identical or perhaps just different underframes? 313 perhaps? That ought to have wide appeal, and if it needed only two sets of tooling to make a 3 car unit might be more viable.

[frobisher]

I am wondering though - is there any three car unit where both driving cars are identical or perhaps just different underframes? 313 perhaps? That ought to have wide appeal, and if it needed only two sets of tooling to make a 3 car unit might be more viable.

313 would be a stonking choice to my mind. There's only two bodyshell types to model and the differences are as you say on the underframe - and I'm pretty sure that applies across the whole PEP family.

 

As built, the whole family had the following formations

 

313 DMSO+PTSO+BDMSO

314 DMSO+PTSO+DMSO

315 DMSO+TSO+PTSO+DMSO

507 DMSO+TSO+BDMSO

508 DMSO+TSO+TSO+BDMSO

 

So, by tooling up one extra body shell, the TSO (which might only be a case of doing a different roof moulding if you go down that path) you can then take a crack at the lot. Obviously the 313/507/508 have 3rd rail shoes where as the rest don't but there is a single common bogie design across the lot. There are small differences in regards the door opening buttons (certainly between 507 and 508) but that might be an acceptable compromise.

 

Once you have the TSO that's of use for modelling 455/7 should the MK3 EMUs get a shot (again a lot of commonality but slightly more diversity than the PEP derived stock (different cab/end designs for a starter).

[GordonC]

313 would be a stonking choice to my mind. There's only two bodyshell types to model and the differences are as you say on the underframe - and I'm pretty sure that applies across the whole PEP family.

 

As built, the whole family had the following formations

 

313 DMSO+PTSO+BDMSO

314 DMSO+PTSO+DMSO

315 DMSO+TSO+PTSO+DMSO

507 DMSO+TSO+BDMSO

508 DMSO+TSO+TSO+BDMSO

 

So, by tooling up one extra body shell, the TSO (which might only be a case of doing a different roof moulding if you go down that path) you can then take a crack at the lot. Obviously the 313/507/508 have 3rd rail shoes where as the rest don't but there is a single common bogie design across the lot. There are small differences in regards the door opening buttons (certainly between 507 and 508) but that might be an acceptable compromise.

 

Once you have the TSO that's of use for modelling 455/7 should the MK3 EMUs get a shot (again a lot of commonality but slightly more diversity than the PEP derived stock (different cab/end designs for a starter).

 

Those classes also touch on quite a large geographical spread of the country as well along with numerous livery options over the past 35 years since they've been around

[Andy Hayter]

Well I am sorry if my categorisation has created some confusion or a distraction, but I strongly suspect that the major manufacturers use similar groupings in their market analyses.

 

And yes there are other groups but dedicated kit and scratch builders are hardly of import in a discussion on Bachmann and where we go next with electric traction. After all, they could produce the entire range and you would still be kit/scratch building.

 

Remember also that I said that despite the pigeon holing there is a continuum and indeed it is possible to be in more than one group at a time. How many of us layout owners/users have bought a model because it is "nice" even though outside of our main interest. Perhaps we have a idea for a future layout, but in reality it probably won't get built. Does that not make us a collector as well?

Edited March 21, 2014 by Andy Hayter

[Roy P]

Remember also that I said that despite the pigeon holing there is a continuum and indeed it is possible to be in more than one group at a time. How many of us layout owners/users have bought a model because it is "nice" even though outside of our main interest. Perhaps we have a idea for a future layout, but in reality it probably won't get built. Does that not make us a collector as well?

One aspect governing the potential popularity or otherwise of R-T-R electric stock that seems to overlooked is the main line nature of these things. Fewer people with have the resources for a convincing or satisfying mainline than something easier on the space/time/wallet continuum.

I grew up under the wires and have a soft spot for the AC and DC electrics that did their business between Euston and Watford. It would take a major change in my fortunes to turn my six track WCML model from a concept (from the armchair) to something physical.

My compromise (like those with more than one particular sphere of interest) is to have one small layout rather than several large ones*. The presence of a Bachmann class 85 in my collection is a little slice of what I'd do given the chance. Having no immediate ambition to build a 50x25 ft model of the stretch of line between Headstone Lane and the Oxhey Ridge with endless DC kits 501s, Southern Pride 310s and converted EFE '38s shuffling along; I will happily buy an example of any AC electric stuff that Bachmann may offer me even if it does sit around doing nothing except pay homage to my pipe dream. 

 

RP

[GordonC]

One aspect governing the potential popularity or otherwise of R-T-R electric stock that seems to overlooked is the main line nature of these things. Fewer people with have the resources for a convincing or satisfying mainline than something easier on the space/time/wallet continuum.

I grew up under the wires and have a soft spot for the AC and DC electrics that did their business between Euston and Watford. It would take a major change in my fortunes to turn my six track WCML model from a concept (from the armchair) to something physical.

My compromise (like those with more than one particular sphere of interest) is to have one small layout rather than several large ones*. The presence of a Bachmann class 85 in my collection is a little slice of what I'd do given the chance. Having no immediate ambition to build a 50x25 ft model of the stretch of line between Headstone Lane and the Oxhey Ridge with endless DC kits 501s, Southern Pride 310s and converted EFE '38s shuffling along; I will happily buy an example of any AC electric stuff that Bachmann may offer me even if it does sit around doing nothing except pay homage to my pipe dream. 

 

RP

 

There are plenty of double-track sections of the WCML that could be modelled either as core WCML sections or diversionary routes, urban or rural if you're looking for real locations. I dont think its unique to AC modellers to want to have a gallon in mind but only a pint pot of space in practice!!

[Roy P]

There are plenty of double-track sections of the WCML that could be modelled either as core WCML sections or diversionary routes, urban or rural if you're looking for real locations. I dont think its unique to AC modellers to want to have a gallon in mind but only a pint pot of space in practice!!

Totally agree. What I was really getting at from a purely personal view point is that when it comes to running under the wires, it's the location at least as much as the stock that would attract me. This for me means the 6 track section at the south end of the WCML where the local D.C. lines run alongside the fast and slow A.C. pairs. I spent more time on the D.C. lines' 501 units than I ever did behind an A.C. loco. It is the nostalgia of  rattling up the smoke as a teenager and all that. I'm not really looking for a reason to run a Bachmann class 85 - I bought one anyway. As an enthusiast of all Britain's railway heritage there are plenty of other fish for me to fry which might offer a simpler satisfaction. 

Having said all that, I do get what your saying about easier prototype locations for A.C. modellers and this leads us back to the catch 22 we are faced with regarding for the moment, in R-T-R terms of waiting for stable mates and infrastructure for the 85 to justify the effort. 

There are those who's passion for these things means that they are willing and able to make such an effort and they have shown on this forum some magnificent achievements. These talented individuals may not actually need R-T-R product to make their dreams a reality. It would just be a nice timesaver for them if done properly to their standard and by accounts the Bachmann 85 was. Other recent efforts apparently not. This all underlines the original question of what if anything, may we see being produced as a follow up to the 85 and is there enough demand for it? 

Catch 22!

 

RP

[ThaneofFife]

Well it seems RTP catenary is still on the table from Dapol as their new 2014/2015 catalogue finally refers to some new items in N and 00

 

This has to be a real forward step moment in uk overhead modelling. Its encouraging to see that the catenary range is finally being expanded....

It can only bouy the likes of Bachmann to consider maybe bringing another AC model to the market......

I am thinking though that maybe we're more likely to see an N gauge Class 85 before we see a new 00 electric loco.....no bad thing because the quality of n gauge nowadays really is amazing and if course you can run 10 coach crack expresses in a relatively small space.....that train length in 00 requires a fair old space.

Edited March 22, 2014 by ThaneofFife

[wombatofludham]

Yes, surprisingly the new catalogue talks about double arm plain line masts, H beam gantries, tensioning masts and catenary wiring. I genuinely thought they were off the agenda given the long silence on their development.

 

I know they won't please everyone but given those who want fine scale accuracy will probably be building their own knitting anyway, given most real life OHLE varies widely in design depending on location, for those of us who want something that looks reasonably close and OO scale but don't want to spend years custom building, I'm happy to accept compromise and will be more than happy to use the Dapol kit.

 

Really looking forward to see what emerges.

[ThaneofFife]

Whether they were already in the bag or not i suggested to Dapol about 2 years back that the double sided mast would be an easy and useful addition. I also suggested the masts you see either sides of overbridges where the arms are reversed but i dare say one could easily chop up some of the original masts to make your own....

It now seems the 00 range is being expanded more than the N gauge range.the double arm masts are going to be a nice addition for representing wire take off and lead in sections.

Cant wait to see these new packs as it really does open up the opportunity to knock up a half decent overhead system now albeit mainly based north of weaver junction if we're talking WCML.....lets hope they dont take until 2015 to arrive.

Edited March 22, 2014 by ThaneofFife

[Traksy]

Does it say anything about wires? Not that we can't use Viessmann wires but hopefully the mast will at least be strong enough to support them.

[ThaneofFife]

Yep there are wire packs of various lengths

......

i just hope these items are not a catalogue error because they were announced over a year ago but then we heard nothing.

Fingers crossed the fact theyve made it into print does actually mean they will be produced......

200mm max wire length in 00 is a bit short but hopefully they will run longer lengths off too....

[James90012]

Perhaps a way to gain interest in the market would be to have an AC starter set with a pack or two of appropriate Dapol catenary (if it actually gets released) included?

[ThaneofFife]

Another thought is that now maybe with lots more potential offered up courtesy of the new items sales of the original masts will begin to boom. I fear sales of those mk3 masts could of tailed off because folk felt no more items were going to see the light of day.me included because i sold most of mine on.....

Pity the Dapol catalogue isnt more vocal about its new catenary items.

with a much more workable system now maybe the manufacturers will think twice before putting thoughts of a new AC electric loco on the backburner......i'd like to think someone (prefer Bachmann) will land grab another class of loco if they feel it could be snapped up by a competitor....

[GordonC]

The difficultly with selling catenary could be the time lag between people knowing they're there and available and then getting around to making use of them in their next layout. Not many folk are serial layout builders so it could take quite a while for sales to start building up. I just hope Dapol are in for the long haul with them and dont give up too quickly

[wombatofludham]

Oddly enough their timing couldn't be better for me as I hope after some delays to make a start on my new shed layouts this summer!

[ThaneofFife]

Purely conjecture but I think most would simply erect the catenary over their existing track plans rather than build an all new layout

[Andy Hayter]

I have to disagree with your comments re France.

 

Models released since Jan 2011

 

BB 16654 - Vitrains

CC 6500 - Lematec

BB 15000 - LS Models

BB 7003 - Roco

BB 16000 - Roco

CC 21003 21004 - Jouef

2D2 5400 - Jouef

BB 8500 Jouef

BB 17000 - Jouef

BB 25500 - Jouef

BB 16500 - LS Models

BB 7200 - LS Models

BB 22200 - LS Models

CC 6500 - Roco

BB 22200 - Roco

BB 1-80 - Mistral

CC 6500 - Lematec

CC 21000 - Lematec

2D2 - Waterman - Jouef

 

 

You will note some duplication by the same producers but these will either be livery variants or (in the case of the CC 6500) body variants.

[298]

I think the simple answer is, nobody knows how a model will sell until it is released. W!sh l!sts might give some idea but they don't really include impulse sales to those who wouldnt normally consider a model (I wouldn't have kitbuilt a Metropolitan Electric but am looking at the Heljan one), and who'd have thought we'd have to wait so long for a Blue Pullman or GWR City. And then there are poorly received models not selling and subsequently being re-done, such as the Helj@n Western and 86.

 

I still think Bachmann have regretted not doing the class 76...

[frobisher]

I see a lot disagreed with my view electrics are not popular...

 

So if they are, in Delia Smiths words to Norwich fans "where are you ???"

 

We have a 40+ year old class81 by triang and liliput.

We have a 30 year old 86 from Hornby

We have 20 year old versions of 90,91,92 from Hornby, and similar Lima87 and 92.

 

In the 21st century we have 2 new OHLE models ? -and how many diesels ?

2? From Hornby alone there are the 390, 395. Bachmann have the 350 and 85. Heljan's 86, and 76, 77 for Olivia's.

 

If there are so much pent demand, why don't we have an 82,83,84, a reworked long over due class 81 or even th gap which is the class 89 ?

You're conflating several things together there. There's demand out there, certainly, but also a risk adverse attitude from the manufacturers. The scale of the demand is not on the level of steam and diesel for a multitude of factors and no one is claiming that it is.

 

Existing, older models from Hornby and Farish are selling satisfactorily or they wouldn't keep producing new models year on year. There's a demand there or they wouldn't keep throwing models at the market in some forlorn hope.

 

But you can clearly point to the Heljan 86 being a failure, as masters of the "work a tooling to death and churn out liveries" school of production, there hasn't been any subsequent production after the first batch. relatively speaking, Bachmann's 85 has been more successful as in its second year it had new liveries and reruns on what were obviously the more popular liveries (the 85's sitting on shelves are funnily enough from the obscure livery/detail variant that filled a very narrow niche).

 

But for Hornby (and Farish), you can see them looking at tooling that owes them next to nothing, doing modestly well, but with sales figures that probably wouldn't support a newly tooled version as is (but upgraded drives seem to happen). But that's chicken and egg. Sales that are ticking along could be because the models aren't really up to snuff, so sales may be better driven by a new model. But they might not be. That might just be the totality of the market.

 

Bachmann, with no legacy tooling on the market, will have their own data about the viability of another OHLE model. With the 85 they managed to cover all the bases with the tooling from day one, with relatively minor differences accommodated, plus a very measured choice of prototype. Heljan entered the minefield of the Class 86 and also got key details wrong on the narrow range (time and detail wise) that they did produce and which precluded the early liveries which would later prove popular enough on the 85 to get reruns.

 

Mainline electrics are well behind the curve for gap filling in the manner that has occurred for diesel, there's no doubt about it. The Bachmann 85 is probably analogous to the point we were at when the Heljan 47 was originally introduced. It's a step change, no two ways about it.