who will take on the class 50 now?

[CaleyDave]

Door locks were introduced around privatisation so are correct for late swallow and anything after.

All production HST mk3 have 1 square vent.
6 of the prototype mk3 with 3 vents (amounst other things) were converted and found use on eastern and western.

When virgin introduced the voyager to crosscountry and west coast to replace the HSTs the mk3's were used to strengthen exciting existing trains. When Arriva crosscountry brings back the HSTs the shortage of HST mk3s see the conversion of mk3As which have the 3 roof vents leading to a mixture of HST and A.
Grand central obtained the non standard unwanted buffered HSTs and had to convert coaches from the mk3a

[davidinyork]

Door locks were introduced around privatisation so are correct for late swallow and anything after.

All production HST mk3 have 1 square vent.
6 of the prototype mk3 with 3 vents (amounst other things) were converted and found use on eastern and western.

When virgin introduced the voyager to crosscountry and west coast to replace the HSTs the mk3's were used to strengthen exciting trains. When Arrival crosscountry brings back the HSTs the shortage of HST mk3s see the conversion of mk3As which have the 3 roof vents leading to a mixture of HST and A.
Grand central obtained the non standard buffered HSTs and had to convert coaches from the mk3a

Plus there are two FGW HST trailers converted from Mk3a.

The GC coaches being all converted from Mk3a (apart from the buffets) bears no relation to the buffered power cars, though - in oepreation those are fully interchangeable with any other power cars.

[Sprintex]

When virgin introduced the voyager to crosscountry and west coast to replace the HSTs the mk3's were used to strengthen exciting trains.

I'd definitely call HSTs 'exciting trains'


Paul

[CaleyDave]

Plus there are two FGW HST trailers converted from Mk3a.

Correct (I had not spotted them).

Looking at the 2017 Platform 5 book
A (hopefully) complete list of coaches with 3 roof vents are...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great western have 3 MK3A TS (42381-3) and 2 MK3P TS (42353,42356)
East Midland have 1 MK3A TS (42384)
East coast have 1 MK3P TF (41170) and 2 MK3P TS (42355,42357)
Cross country have 15 MK3A TS(42366-80), 3 MK3A TF (41193-5) and 5 TCK (45001-5).
Grand Central have 9 MK3A TS (42401-9) and 6 MK3A TF (41201-6).
Network Rail have 2 MK3P (975814,975984)

The GC coaches being all converted from Mk3a (apart from the buffets) bears no relation to the buffered power cars, though - in oepreation those are fully interchangeable with any other power cars.

I was more the fact that Grand Central are made up of the runts of the litter. Reading it back inserting the word "unwanted" would better ilistrate my point.

I'd definitely call HSTs 'exciting trains'

That is what happens when I post from a phone 

[davidinyork]

East Midland have 1 MK3A TS (42384)

That one's a standard Mk3 - converted from Mk3 TF 41078. As I recall it was converted as a replacement for TS 42324 which was written off in a shunting mishap.

The rest of your list is, so far as I know, correct.

Mk3a sleepers and the RFB catering vehicles have the HST-style roof ventilators, as do the MK3b FO / BFO. The sleepers and the Mk3bs also have built-in tail lights. The RFBs were all subsequently converted into RFMs, with additional RFMs converted from Mk3a FOs and ex-HST Mk3 TRUKs.

Mk3 catering vehicles, in both the HST and Loco-hauled variants, are rather a minefield as regards detail, with multiple modifications over the years.

Some of the other HST Mk3 TRUKs were converted into royal train carriages, as were two of the prototype HST vehicles.

[Bob G]

When virgin introduced the voyager to crosscountry and west coast to replace the HSTs the mk3's were used to strengthen exciting trains.

I find all trains exciting

[Newportnobby]

I find MK3 coaches are off topic

[BobB]

I have noticed in other threads that Union Mills gets overwhelming praise compared to both Farish and Dapol. The formula of a well performing locomotive with less detail appears to work for steam outline so why will it not for diesel and electric ?

If the basic shape and size is OK then the model can become the basis for super detailing if the owner demands it - it could become the basis for others to thrive just like, say, tmc's wonderful weathering service.

I think we need the choice. If we had the choice, then Farish and Dapol (and anyone else) could aim for their market rather than super detail at any price.

(As for counting rivets, I don't see many of the diesel locomotives !)

[austinbob]

I don't think Union Mills popularity is too much to do with less detail. I think its more to do that with Union Mills you know what you are buying and you get it at a price you think is reasonable. Their locos have basic detail but you know that when you buy one. Most people praise Union Mills because of the robustness, reliability and pulling power of their locos.

If other manufacturers actually delivered what was promised/described in their literature and every loco they delivered (OK nearly every loco) was robust, reliable and did what it said on the tin then we'd all be happy. OK, if it costs more for them to do that then so be it.

If they can only produce locos sometimes that work properly such that us modellers may have to fettle a loco to get it to work properly or that there is a good chance we may have to send it back for repair or replacement - then the manufacturers should tell us this at the time of purchase.

Then they can keep the price low and we can make the choice as to whether we are prepared to take the risk in purchasing their product.

[BobB]

Valid points austinbob. Not fulfilling the promise is probably the underlying reason for unhappiness when we think of schedule, quality/reliability and robustness.

[red_death]

Union Mills have full control of their supply chain (as I understand it) and offer one or two fundamental power units which Colin uses very well for multiple projects.  That is not possible for many locos without compromise - do we really want to go back to inaccurate shared chassis for a 37 and 47 etc? I don't know Colin's business model in terms of sunk costs or amortisation or need to generate profit.  Without that then comparisons with UM are frankly academic.

Anyone manufacturing models in China would like greater control of the supply chain (specification wise (the number of times you get told we don't know how to do X), consistency and scheduling) but that currently is incredibly difficult for such a small scale business (or certainly without costs spiralling out of control).

There is certainly a balance between detail and assembly cost, or perhaps more accurately separately applied detail and assembly cost.  Not all detail requires to be a separate part - some of the best grilles I've seen are moulded rather than etched (though that is easier in OO than N). Removing detail does not necessarily save significant amounts of cash unless it also saves a significant amount of assembly time.

For every person that wants less detail, how many don't? If you are to be convinced as a manufacturer of a very niche product to remove detail for a small saving are you going to be able to sell significantly more to compensate? Margin is generally is a percentage so any lower sale price means the margin may be the same in percentage terms but you are going to raise less cash in absolute terms (if you need to pay for tooling or salaries or going to shows or R&D) then that is a problem and the only solution is to sell more.  So do you genuinely believe a marginal saving on less detail is going to lead to more sales? Or will it just mean marginally cheaper prices for existing customers? Are you prepared to take that bet?

If you believe it is worth a punt then I will gladly help you realise it, but it will require a lot of effort and it will be your risk.

Cheers, Mike

[PLD]

I think we need the choice.

Hit the nail on the head - choice is good, but sometimes some posters seem to forget that others are entitled to make different choices to theirs...

The other problem is choice costs money to provide. If two suppliers produce models of the same prototype to different standards it doubles the development costs but will result in minimal if any extra sales, so even the more basic model end up costing more per unit than if only the super-detailed version had been done. If both versions are developed in tandem by the same supplier, yes some development costs would be shared, but potentially two lots of tooling are needed and two lots of set-up costs for the production line. At best the lesser model still ends up around the same price as now and the detailed model costing more...

[Nik96]

This constant proposal of the lowered detail will seemingly save considerable sums of money, whilst making logical sense, doesn't make any business sense. It has also been mentioned that this was previously discussed on the forum to an overwhelming majority (if my memory serves me correctly) are in favour of higher detail models.

As someone who has spent time researching the market and talking to modelers in various different scales this is also proven. I'll probably get sleighted for this comment, but I'll say it anyway.

This constant referral to this (?potentially?huge?) cost saving proves how out of touch/incorrectly informed some people are.

Most of the shells are single piece plastic with a handful of attaching parts. Removing a grille off the mold wont save all that much money.

As a professional CAD monkey, if the CAD data is made accurately and as we see/expect in the professional world this also adds little time applying it to the CAD model.

[NeMo]

I didn't say I didn't want fine detail just not OTT for the size of the damn things. I'm for smart scale moulding not dirty great pipes and handrails which are over scale anyway. Kato have very crisp mouldings and look just fine. Plus if you want to run trains not just look at them British models are  compared to them.

I've got a Kato SD40 that was secondhand when I bought it, and is probably the best part of 20 years old. But it's got to be said, despite the plastic handrails and the lack of glue-on bits, it looks and works perfectly. It's got a good weight to it, and the flywheel mechanism gives the thing very smooth acceleration and braking. The grain-of-wheat lights have a realistic glow to them very different to the nonsensically bright white LEDs we're used to these days.

The wheel flanges *are* a bit deep, so it tends to drag on ballasted Code-55 track (at least when I'm doing the ballasting!) but it's otherwise lovely.

What UK modellers aren't getting are locomotives that balance reliability with detailing in the way Kato manage to do. Kato don't seem to feel the need to model every rivet and handrail in finely etched brass or folded steel, but instead manage to nail the look-and-feel of the loco nevertheless. It's a tragedy that Kato aren't interested in the UK market. 

Cheers, NeMo

[njee20]

I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but I'd not be surprised if Kato made 10 times the volume of Farish or Dapol, and that brings huge economies of scale.