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
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
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?
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 !
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.
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.
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.
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!
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).
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.
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.
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.
"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
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...
[ 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.
In message , John Turner
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.