MREx Poll 2005...



SR
they
Yes, so the MN's were also an odd choice too then ! The Q1's were seen in all areas other than the small (route miles) section west of Salisbury.

used
of
the
But few route miles compared to the main lines of each of the old Western, Central and Eastern sections. And how many MN's or LN's worked into Padstow ?...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

</snip>
IIRC MNs couldn't run on those western lines due to their axle weight being too great...
Ian J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

in
Western,
being
Yes that was my point, and hence the later WC / BB class loco's - you had more chance in seeing a Q1 in Padstow than a MN !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kim wrote:

And what if we DO want to see nothing but Southern Region models? The SR is the least well represented of the "Big 4" - a modeller of the 1930 - 1965 period of pretty much any location can find the stock that he needs RTR these days, although the LNER is still a little lacking, if you model the SR or BR(S) you are limited to Bulleid Pacifics, a Q1 and those BR Standards which are available.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As long as it's not the London-Midland region. Not every train was a passenger express.
(kim)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kim wrote:

So Jinty's, Ivatt tanks, Fowler 4F's, Stanier 4P's were all passenger express types? And as for the Black 5, 8F and 2P....... Yes, the LMS does have a lot of Passenger express engines - it also has a lot of other types too!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What use is a push-pull locomotive without a push-pull coach set?
Who please makes a Stanier 4P?

Not an Ivatt Class 2 2-6-0 or a Stanier 5F or a Stanier 3P or anything else that carried a 2D shed code.
(kim)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kim wrote:

If only the only thing the Southern modeller could complain of was the lack of a push-pull set!

My mistake, I meant of course the Fowler 4P from Hornby. Dare I mention the Fairburn 4MT ?

It wouldnt surprise me if Bachmann eventually got round to making an Ivatt 2-6-0 using their Ivatt 2-6-2 chassis. My knowledge of the LMS is not as great as I would like - which Stanier 5F are you talking about? Hornby produce the Black 5, and Bachmann the Jubille, so I cant think which loco you mean. As for not carrying the right shed code, I might argue that none of the Bulleid Pacfics produced by Hornby have carried the 72A code, but thats what renumbering is designed for!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip>
Unless he was thinking about the 2-6-0 5P tender loco ?
As for not carrying the right shed code, I might

You have to remember that some just want to open boxes and expect their every wish (read demand) to be granted.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In last year's poll I said I would settle for a Fairburn but would prefer the Stanier 2-6-4t

Not unless voters push for it. To me it's a nonsense that Bachmann are producing the Ivatt Class 4 instead of the Class 2.

It's the 2-6-0 of which 40 examples were produced. They wewre part of the scenery in the west midlands right up to the withdrawal of steam. I am told Bachmann is anxious to end prodction of the Jubilee and other split chassis types and do not necessarilly intend to replace it.

That isn't possible where I live since none of the engines which carried a 2D shedcode are currently available in RTR form.
(kim)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

snip
chassis
Is there a problem with form of cassis construction for RTR?
--
Terry Flynn


http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am told it is very expensive to produce.
(kim)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My source was a model railway journalist who has close connections with Bachmann.
(kim)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So who is stopping them from ending production? There are still plenty of them in the price list, Bachmann put them there, I doubt they are selling at a loss. Keith
Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/ Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Customers. There is still a demand for the ex-Mainline models.

There is but a single example of a Jubilee, a Scot and a re-built Scott, split-chassis LMS-types to which my original argument referred. The Patriot was quietly dropped last year with litle protest. There is a big differnece between 'still making a profit' and 'making the same return as on more modern chassis types'. The tooling which Bachmann inherited is wearing out and in need of replacement. If there is insufficient demand for these particular types, they will not be replaced with updated versions.
(kim)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So the initial remark was wrong, Bachmann are not anxious to end production, rather they are happy to carry on producing as long as they can squeeze a bit more profit out of the old tooling. If they were anxious to end it they would end it. Keith
Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/ Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

So it *is* due to the "cost of components or profit", or don't they regard the labour costs of assembling such models as a 'component' of the manufacturing process ?!...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So you still have not explained why Bachmann are still producing models that they 'want to get out of producing'.
And so far as time goes, I don't see it, the new models have far more parts and far more screws to fit in more inaccessible places and then some parts to be glued on than any of the split chassis models. Keith
Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/ Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about finding a clue and replying to the correct message twit, you snip out all I did say and try to attribute remarks that I didn't say to me - in fact remarks I disagree with !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Pat, You completely miss my point, which is that Bachmann are free to get out of split chassis construction if that is their desire, but they are still in the catalogue and they must therefor want to make and sell them. Keith
Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/ Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.