NGS GWR Collett BG update

[red_death]

Hello folks

You can view an update on the Collett BG and some pics of the preserved prototype at:

http://www.ngaugesociety.com/index.php?page=collett-update

Cheers, Mike

(NGS Product Development Officer)

[Newportnobby]

Thanks, Mike.
Those roof vents are going to be a bugger

[GrahamB]

The steps on the bogie in the third picture look wrong. As a volunteer Guard I'm always using steps like that to get up/down but the left one doesn't appear to relate to a door and the right one is to the left of the door which means I would get knocked off if I tried to open it.

[Karhedron]

Latest update on the project from Ben Ando over on RMWeb. 

have now finalised the livery diagrams for the NGS Collett BGs.  We are offering 8 initially, and as the chocolate and cream has been the most popular in pre-orders we have decided to offer a second variant in this scheme.   We may yet add another in BR maroon (probably with destination markings for variety) as BR Maroon sales are catching up.

1 - No. 109 GWR chocolate and cream with crest:



2:  No. 181 GWR plain chocolate with roundel:



3: No. W152  BR Crimson and Cream:



4:  No. W106W BR plain Crimson:



5: No. W112W BR maroon:



6: No. W141W BR blue:



7:  No. ADB 975157 Enparts:



8: No. 147 GWR chocolate and cream.



I am now awaiting revised CAD drawings from Dapol and will post these when I have them; once metal is cut the next stage will be moulded samples.

[Sea Mills]

Is it only me who can't open the attachments?   I get a message saying I don't have permission to view it.

David

[Calnefoxile]

That's probably because you need to log into RMWeb to see them.

I'll put a message on RMWeb for Ben to repeat his message on here.

Regards

Neal.

[Sea Mills]

Thanks Neal.

I don't like RMWeb, not least because I can never find anything on it.   However I am aware that the NGS depends on volunteers and we can't expect them to post on every forum - but I don't understand why they don't communicate directly with their members by e-mail.   It is still one posting and doesn't require us to use a commercially motivated forum not of our choosing.

David

[red_death]

Thanks Neal.

I don't like RMWeb, not least because I can never find anything on it.   However I am aware that the NGS depends on volunteers and we can't expect them to post on every forum - but I don't understand why they don't communicate directly with their members by e-mail.   It is still one posting and doesn't require us to use a commercially motivated forum not of our choosing.

David

Hi David

For the simple reason that the NGS is not currently set up to manage 5000+ emails. The NGS Journal is the avenue for us to communicate directly with members.  This forum, RMweb, our own website etc are all channels we can use to reach a wider audience.

Cheers, Mike

(NGS Product Development Officer)

[GWR-Kris]

oh cool will wait near time to see samples etc before i purchase one.

[Gooner53]

I see the new Thompson full brake is also on the NGS site - it's the same as the one that Etched Pixels has done for some time now. I think it's a real pity that that an NGS member researches a particular item of rolling stock then invests in producing a kit for it only for the NGS, of which he is a member, to then produce an RTR version! One thing for someone like Dapol or Farish to come along and do it, all's fair in love and war and all that but I wouldn't have expected the NGS to take on its own members! Call me old fashioned......

Nick

[red_death]

I see the new Thompson full brake is also on the NGS site - it's the same as the one that Etched Pixels has done for some time now. I think it's a real pity that that an NGS member researches a particular item of rolling stock then invests in producing a kit for it only for the NGS, of which he is a member, to then produce an RTR version! One thing for someone like Dapol or Farish to come along and do it, all's fair in love and war and all that but I wouldn't have expected the NGS to take on its own members! Call me old fashioned......

Hi Nick

In an ideal world I would agree with you, but the trouble is if NGS members want the NGS to carry on commissioning RTR models then we have to make sure that we invest members' money wisely in something which we are likely to sell in sufficient quantities to make it financially viable (bear in mind we normally need to sell a minimum of 2000-3000 to make it work).

My personal feeling (ie not the NGS Committee's view) is that there are a number of questions on the future of NGS RTR projects which we need to ask - we hope to be able to consult the members shortly.

If you feel strongly please write to the NGS Committee (via the Secretary) and it will be discussed or write to the Journal.

On a related subject we are always open to ideas, comments and suggestions - feel free to drop me a line.

Cheers, Mike

(NGS Product Development Officer)

[Gooner53]

My personal feeling (ie not the NGS Committee's view) is that there are a number of questions on the future of NGS RTR projects which we need to ask - we hope to be able to consult the members shortly.

If you feel strongly please write to the NGS Committee (via the Secretary) and it will be discussed or write to the Journal.

On a related subject we are always open to ideas, comments and suggestions - feel free to drop me a line.

Hi Mike, I'll probably take you up on that offer as I do feel strongly on this one particularly as Alan has been such a strong supporter on N gauge down the years. I'll write to the Committee.

On the wider subject I can see that the whole thing is a minefield and I don't envy you your job one bit, I'm sure that it is one of those thankless tasks that requires loads of effort but brings little credit!  I will give it some careful thought and PM you closer to the weekend...

Cheers
Nick

[EtchedPixels]

I see the new Thompson full brake is also on the NGS site - it's the same as the one that Etched Pixels has done for some time now. I think it's a real pity that that an NGS member researches a particular item of rolling stock then invests in producing a kit for it only for the NGS, of which he is a member, to then produce an RTR version!

Not the first - same with the inspection saloon *and* the only reason the GWR Brake didn't clash is because they changed it for other reasons. Some of the kits clash too - eg the Gresley full brake, although I think my conversion side set is still way better than their kit, cheaper and way way easier to build .

The Thompson surprises me (and mostly doesn't bother me) because nobody really cares much about Thompson stock. I think you see that in the reaction of utter disinterest to the announcement and also in the sales of the kit. The steel full brake is less popular than such oddities as the LB&SCR hearse, or the Furness Railway ex NLR third.

The steel corridor Thompson stock had a very narrow lifespan (basically post war to mid 1960s on the whole), and pretty much no departmental use. They look like Mark 1 coaches in many respects and had no "classic" or special features to make then stand out - plus to LNER fans they are "Thompson" (*). The full brake in some ways is also the worst choice possible for hacking on - its narrower, its got different bogies and has other subtle oddities that make it the least suitable for things like etched replacement sides.

The NGS has things to juggle with that are not easy
- If it makes sense RTR it probably already made sense as a kit
- Sometimes you replace a crap old kit (eg the Stove R or the Snowplough) and nobody is too sad about that
- The era range of interest (where the Thompson is also a complete fail)
- A wide choice of liveries (so people buy several)
- There are lots of people who don't kit build but do by society RTR stock. They are members too and the society serves them as well.

It's interesting that the Collett Brake was changed from a much later Hawksworth one for other reasons. That vastly improved upon the era and livery. It ought to have been the obvious choice in the first place !

IMHO the society is failing to capitalise on the real advantages of RTR or be adventurous enough. They ought to be looking at stuff where the livery is complicated (the Collett works well here), where the range of period is very long and if possible the regional range wide. And not just *another* parcels brake - something a bit more "wow". A 12 wheel pullman would have woken them up or a beavertail observation car.

IMHO the attitude of "if we commission this then maybe big vendor will do other related vehicles" is also turning it from "models for members" into a sort of strategic investment fund for N. The only trouble is that a) its acting like a charity not a fund as b)  the big vendors would do the related mainstream vehicles anyway but now thanks to the funding going that way you don't get a cool model as well.

Some if works well though - the bogies done for their own kits and for other kits are great enabler for kits, as has been the release of things like the Stove-R chassis on its own.

Alan

(*) You have to feel sorry for the poor man. He had to follow Gresley and he got the job in times of war and Austerity. Then he proceeded to throw away several of Gresley's LNER traditions, and to add insult to injury proceeded to rebuild several of his locomotive classes usually for the worse. Rightly or wrongly it means an awful lot of LNER and BR(E) people simply omit him from their modelling except maybe for a B1.

[red_death]

IMHO the society is failing to capitalise on the real advantages of RTR or be adventurous enough.

Some very valid points there Alan.

On the not being adventurous enough point - perhaps, but the element of affordability/risk also comes into it.  If we can piggy-back on existing or tie in with future plans it greatly reduces the costs (which are already not insignificant!), if we go for something really "adventurous" then would members complain about the costs.  We asked about a few different options for RTR6, some of which may have fallen in the more adventurous category but our best guess was the economics didn't stack up.

As an aside is "wow" necessary? Or is common and mundane more desirable?

Cheers, Mike

(NGS Product Development Officer)

[EtchedPixels]

You want common, mundane and wow I think... thats why I'd have chosen a GWR 40ft PBV over a K40. Of course I've no idea what the price quotes you get look like

Not that I'm entirely sad about the 40ft PBV given I've got a pile of drawings of them here 

Alan