Page 2 of 2

Re: Why no dummy Class 20?

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:39 pm
by steve70
GWR_fan wrote:
steve70 wrote:
GWR_fan wrote:One important reason is that a dummy loco would not be much less to purchase than a motorised unit. The dummy would need all the lighting circuits and power pickups of the motorised car and apart from motor and gears would be basically the same.

Would you pay just a few dollars less for a loco without a motor than with a motor?


Did you even read the thread? :o



I read the thread yesterday, but then there was but a few responses so I did not read Stuart's response which is similar to mine as my response was based on the responses then posted not the intervening posts made earlier today. So what is the problem?

If you want a dummy loco then remove the motor from a motorised unit. Has that response been made previously?


I apologise for my tone.
If I had two motorised units, I would use two motorised units. Would be a pointless effort to take the motor out of one of them wouldn't it?

Re: Why no dummy Class 20?

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:43 pm
by steve70
Suzie wrote:Since models nowadays have about the same haulage capability as the prototype if you are replicating a double headed train you will probably need both locos powered or your train will not be going anywhere.

HST power cars are sold as pairs. There is not much point in selling 20s as pairs when not everyone will need both. That said it was a hell of a job getting the second Lima 20 to make my DRS pair!


Your first point is interesting and plausible.
I'm not saying they should be sold as pairs, just an option to purchase a dummy if required.
If it really wouldn't be much cheaper to produce one without a motor then I'd be happy with that.

Re: Why no dummy Class 20?

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:19 pm
by Bigmet
It really isn't cheaper to make a non-powered version, with current designs and factory systems.

When the item was a Triang, Hornby-Dublo, or similar production with about 20 parts in total, and always to the same pattern as one of the four types of drive in the range, just leaving out the motor or armature was easy enough, a fairly simple instruction from the office to the factory floor would do it. But the current models and the manufacturing system are not like that, there's a pile of components to leave out, and that means generating a new parts list to supply the correct parts to the assembly stations, and assembly instructions for using the parts correctly. The way models are made is in small batches by people who may never have seen that particular model before, and may never see it again. Yesterday they were making a US HO diesel, and this time next week they will be assembling a French design steam loco, so they need instructions which make sure they get it right. That organisation costs money - everything is costed now - and that wipes out any saving from leaving out some parts, especially on a short run.

Re: Why no dummy Class 20?

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:30 am
by GWR_fan
As an example, in largescale garden railways an undecorated (unpainted) loco or piece of rolling stock is the same price as a fully painted/liveried model. Logic would dictate that the unpainted model should reflect the fact that the model has not gone through the painting/masking stage of production, however, economies of scale ensure that both are the same price on the shelf.

At one time an auto transmission on a car was a very expensive option. Today to fall within environmental restrictions many manufacturers offer an auto as a standard feature and for those wanting a manual transmission then that is a costly option.

Re: Why no dummy Class 20?

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:44 pm
by pete12345
I have an old Piko loco with two completely separate motors- one driving each bogie. That manages just fine so I don't see why two motorised locos doubleheaded should be any difference. In real life, a slight imbalance in power just results in one loco doing more work than the other.

Re: Why no dummy Class 20?

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:06 am
by 6C
Without gettting into pedantics and semantics (hell, why not I am good at both!!) - only the Dublo version was introduced in the era when the EE Type 1 (Class 20) was a young loco and generally run singly - the Lima, Hornby and Bachmann versions all post-date the use of 20's on heavy MGR and main line mineral runs..... so the OP is on that basis pretty darn valid...

I'll get me coat and tin hat on the way out... :lol:

BTW - I have 2 Lima 20's - which I run singly as my layout is circa 1960 :roll: :wink:

Re: Why no dummy Class 20?

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:37 am
by b308
wasleys wrote:
steve70 wrote: I still think it was very rare to see a 20 operating on it's own. I only ever saw them in pairs

Around Scunthorpe in the 60s and 70s they worked singly on trip working and the Gunness banker duty. I also recall them working singly on passenger trains north of Aberdeen in the summer of 63.


Agree with that, I can remember the early years and it was quite rare to see them double headed... I remember being rescued by one of them which then hauled the train over Beattock (electric loco + 10) when our engine brought the wires down at Quintonshill... Didn't go very fast, though, and we arrived 5 1/2 hours late with no apology from BR and no refunds - those were the days... Not!

Re: Why no dummy Class 20?

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:38 am
by Bigmet
6C wrote:... only the Dublo version was introduced in the era when the EE Type 1 (Class 20) was a young loco and generally run singly - the Lima, Hornby and Bachmann versions all post-date the use of 20's on heavy MGR and main line mineral runs..... so the OP is on that basis pretty darn valid...

Except that BR blue and later modelling is overwhelmingly dominated by TMD layouts, where locos - even if normally worked in multiple - typically will need to move independently once at the depot if the full range of movements and functions is modelled. Therefore all locos have to be powered, so demand for dummy locos is vanishingly small.

And the one exception. Vanishingly few folk model depots that serviced HST sets, or have a layout capable of operating a full size HST formation, thus the ability of Lima and Hornby to produce these in loco plus dummy sets, because there is very little modelling of the power cars moving as independent locos.

Re: Why no dummy Class 20?

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2015 10:31 pm
by alan_r
I've often wondered this too. I bought myself a few dummy chassis from 'Ian Stoate' which sort the problem for DC.
In terms of cost though, Dapol released dummy class 66s for £35 when the powered models were £70+ (N-gauge at least), and currently Hattons are offering Hymek class35s at £85 powered and £36 as an unpowered dummy!
They must make a profit on these. Admittedly the market volume will be less than for coaches, but I can't imaging the market for class35s is bigger than for class20s? The same applied for the class86, where the networkrail powered and dummy twin-pack cost less than a single class86 in the other liveries! The tooling cost has already been spent whether they sell one or a thousand, so some dummy 20s would contribute to extra body sales to help pay for the tooling?
I for one would buy dummy class 20s if only to save renumbering, especially at £35 :)