Bachy Fairburns are go!

although
modellers
Cough, can someone tell that to Bachmann please, another loco other than a LMS/BR(M) would be nice....!
Reply to
Jerry
Loading thread data ...
"Jerry" wrote
There is a difference if I may say. The Ivatt 4MTs were used beyond the former LMS territory, and many were built at Darlington and ran on NER and Scottish metals. They were the principle motive power on the former M&GN lines too.
The Fairburn 2-6-4Ts were used virtually nationwide including south of the Thames, and also on GWR metals. They also saw use in Scotland.
Now tell me how many of the Southern Railway classes which Hornby are supposedly releasing this year, saw much if any use outside the former SR territories?
Let's not forget also that Bachmann have announced a BR(SR) emu, and not one which only saw service in Kent. There planned Ivatt Mickey Mouse 2-6-0 was another prototype which was used virtually everywhere, whilst the proposed BR Standard 2-6-0 was another 'go anywhere' prototype.
I'll do no more than mention Bachmann's recently released BR Standard 9F as yet another widely used prototype.
I really wonder just where Hornby do their market research?
John.
Reply to
John Turner
Good grief, are you advocating we run nearly all Standards and miss out on the wonderful shapes and colours throughout the companies. Not allowed to have an LMS pacific - the only late crest I have. What about the poor obsessive Claughton admirer ....give him some hope.
9F wide geographically but poor time distribution.
Hornby - well how about the 8F, as far as the middle east !
Cheers, Simon
Reply to
simon
"simon" wrote
Not at all, just explaining that Bachmann have chosen prototypes which have seen wide geographical use (including some on the Southern) whereas Hornby's choice of prototypes has generally been more limited in their use. I stress 'generally' - there are exceptions with both manufacturers.
I'd love a small boilered 'Claughton' - it would probably be the only loco model I would buy which wouldn't fit into my modelling interests, that doesn't mean I think it would be a big seller or a viable proposition for any of the RTR manufacturers.
Indeed, assuming we're talking about the BR steam/diesel transitional era, which is generally accepted as being the widest modelled period currently. We could of course claim that Hornby's recently released 'Britannia' model suffers from the same time limitations - and there are fewer of those in preservation to extend the modelling potential.
Good one that, and on the strength of War Department use we should have RTR models of a 'Dean Goods' and a ROD 2-8-0 too.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
They might have been used on other regions but that doesn't mean that they were widely used on those regions, yes the Fairburn's were used on the southern but not system wide - put it another way, the BR Standard 4MT was widely used across the whole country but was only inherited by the WR after taking some ex SR and LMS lines into it's area, true the 4MT's worked on the WR but only in limited numbers and only very late in the days of steam. Indeed the 9F's could be seen on the SR but again only in certain areas. Of all the locos in the Bachmann stable one can't model the SR because the there is not enough native SR loco's, it would be like trying to model an ex LNER line by just using those ex LMS or BR Standards that *might* have been seen along side the native ex LNER stuff.
Indeed, I can't understand why niether Hornby or Bachmann have produced the 'ROD', not only was use by the WD but also native to the GCR/LNER but a sizable number were used by the GWR and the class lived well into BR days.
Reply to
Jerry
"Jerry" wrote
But one cannot really claim that for any of the modelled SR prototypes, ok maybe a solitary Terrier got absorbed by the GWR (courtesy of the WC&P), but tell me where you would regularly see N 2-6-0s, M7s, Lord Nelsons, King Arthurs and the like OFF SR metals? I'm not advocating ignoring the Southern, just asking for models which had a much wider geographical spread, or a more balanced release programme each year.
They were also used on LMS lines - owned by the LNWR I believe, although I'm not sure whether they survived the grouping.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
prototypes, ok
geographical spread,
Other than in special cases / joint systems, when were the GWR Panniers, LMS Jinty's, LNER J72's ever used on other regions. What you seem to be failing to understand is that to model a chosen region one needs native stock, not just what might have been used / seen from other regions. A Fairburn tank (or indeed a Standard tank) on the SR is find but one does need the native SR stock as well, what you seem to saying is like suggesting that because the SR BB/WC and N classes worked into the WR the GWR modeller should not be offered a Hall class or an ex GW 2-6-0!
Reply to
Jerry
Wartime would be the answer in both cases (and wartime - both 1 and 2 - seems to be an olly popular period to model these days, as witnesss A4s and others released in plain black). In WW1 Adams Radials worked on the Dingwall and Skye, and in WW2 the Glasgow & South Western section of the LM&S got at least two Stroudley Ds (and a couple of Terriers, IIRC)[1]. There are photographs from the period of Jintys and J72s well out of area, and the same goes for some of the smaller panniers.
For those modellers who might be keen, one of the Ds was in full Malachite green and was kept very clean (ref: David L. Smith, Legends of the G&SW in LMS days). T'other was black and dirty.
Reply to
Andrew Robert Breen
"Jerry" wrote
I could cite the use of Jinties in North & South Wales, Scotland, Hull & York (both well into NER territory) as well as use throughout the former LMS lines and extensive use on the North London Railway (and thus into GWR territory & maybe even onto Southern metals?).
J72s were indeed a little more restricted in their use, but they were allocated to 20D (Normanton MPD) on the Midland mainline, although this shed did later come under BR(NER) control.
Whilst accepting your point on the use of appropriate stock, Hornby does seem to have neglected that aspect with its current obsession with Bulleid Pacifics, Kings Arthurs, M7s, Q1s etc.. Not that I mind any of those in isolation, just question why they should flood the market all at once. A more balanced approach to releases would have made more sense in my opinion in generating nationwide rather than mainly regional sales.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
2 actually. Terrier no.643 became Weston Cleveland & Portishead Railway No.1 "Portishead" in 1925 and another was acquired from SR in 1936 becoming No.4. They came into GWR ownership on 22 June 1940 with No.4 working in the Bristol area until condemned in 1948 and Portishead after overhaul worked around Bristol until 1948, then Bridgwater Docks and finally stored at Swindon until scrapped in 1954. See:
formatting link
Alan
Reply to
Alan P Dawes
"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote
A B4 0-4-0T worked at an NCB facility at Crigglestone near Wakefield (West Yorkshire) into the 1950s, but that's just another odd-ball example of exceptional workings.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
To follow up my own post. According to
formatting link
"Portishead" was WC&PR No.2 not 1 and became GWR no.5. The terrier No.4 acquired in 1936 was SR2653 becaming GWR No.6.
Alan
Reply to
Alan P Dawes
,
region
Hmm, what don't you understand about "Other than in special cases...", most people would call the country being at war as a special case!
Reply to
Jerry
What
what
those in
This has becoming a circular argument, you seem to be objecting to Hornby 'flooding the market' with SR designed stock but seem over joyed when Bachmann do the same with LMS designed stock...
Reply to
Jerry
[ re ex LBSCR Terrier's ]
So seemed to be more wide spread than the NER/LNER J72, not forgetting that many a Terrier was sold into Private ownership and thus one could legitimately use one on any layout based between the two world wars that has a private exchange siding.
Reply to
Jerry
"Jerry" wrote
Simple difference - SR stock generally used on SR tracks, LMS stock used pretty much nationwide. Which bit of that do you not understand Jerry?
John.
Reply to
John Turner
In message , John Turner writes
Jinties were used in South Wales, but on services belonging to ex-LMS lines. I don't remember seeing many pictures, if any at all, of Jinties on the Cardiff Valleys lines, for example.
If I were modelling an intensive service of mineral and passenger trains on the Cardiff Valleys lines, I would like a lot of GWR tank locos, including some classes (4200, 5205, 7200) that aren't available ready-to-run. Any "foreign" locos would appear in very small numbers amongst the large number of ex-GWR locos.
So I shan't be buying any Jinties.
Reply to
Jane Sullivan

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.